Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2016, 12:04:57 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  FAA changes regarding "Position and Hold"?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: FAA changes regarding "Position and Hold"?  (Read 15444 times)
Cessna172
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


« on: April 09, 2006, 05:15:38 PM »

A friend at my airport told me today that the FAA regs are going to be changed. Supposedly, the phrase "position and hold" will be abolished. Does anyone know anything about this?

Thanks!!

P.S. After hearing this, I went flying and I heard a lot of "Taking runway 33". Is that part of the new plan?

Cessna172
Home Airport: West Houston Airport (KIWS)
www.westhoustonairport.com
Logged
n57flyguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2006, 05:23:05 PM »

yes, It has been "abolished" since March 20th I believe. As for what takes its place, I can ask around....


Paul
Logged

Fly to live, live to fly!
Check out www.n57.com
ZOTAN
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2006, 05:47:36 PM »

It has been "banned" but facilities can put in a request for a waiver. About 99.9% of all airports in the US put in for the waiver and were approved. The only difference now is using "position and hold" instead of "taxi into position in hold". It was just a move by the FAA to make the public happy. Too bad they dont tell them about how 99% of all facilities got a waiver.
Logged

Matt Stevens
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2006, 06:18:25 PM »

Quote from: ZOTAN
...The only difference now is using "position and hold" instead of "taxi into position in hold"...


Actually "position and hold" has been the preferred phraseology for the TIPH procedure for over 3 years now.  However many of the journeymen were still using "taxi into position and hold" until recently.

3-9-4. TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD (TIPH)

PHRASEOLOGY-
RUNWAY (number), POSITION AND HOLD.

Or, when only one runway is active:

POSITION AND HOLD.
Logged

Regards
JD
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2006, 09:39:54 PM »

Quote
About 99.9% of all airports in the US put in for the waiver and were approved.


Sorry to be skeptical--What's your source for that information?     smiley
Logged
ZOTAN
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2006, 09:46:33 PM »

Quote from: digger
Quote
About 99.9% of all airports in the US put in for the waiver and were approved.


Sorry to be skeptical--What's your source for that information?     smiley


A controller working at KSAN. Also from personal experience just flying around to different airprots throughout Southern California. Sorry I cant provide links or anything though; I guess your going to have to take my word for it.
Logged

Matt Stevens
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2006, 01:01:28 PM »

I can concur with Matt's information.  I also recently asked a tower controller at my class C airport, which had previously announced that they were doing away with P&H by the end of March, about whether they were keeping it and I was told "yes, P&H is not going away anytime soon."
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Cessna172
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2006, 05:24:45 PM »

Quote from: ZOTAN
It has been "banned" but facilities can put in a request for a waiver. About 99.9% of all airports in the US put in for the waiver and were approved. The only difference now is using "position and hold" instead of "taxi into position in hold". It was just a move by the FAA to make the public happy. Too bad they dont tell them about how 99% of all facilities got a waiver.


Interesting...So if I understand correctly, position and holding on a runway is still acceptable. However, one must use the phrase: "Position and Hold, runway XX." Have I misunderstood??

Cessna172
Home Airport: West Houston Airport (KIWS)
www.westhoustonairport.com
Logged
ZOTAN
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2006, 05:55:09 PM »

Quote from: Cessna172
Interesting...So if I understand correctly, position and holding on a runway is still acceptable. However, one must use the phrase: "Position and Hold, runway XX." Have I misunderstood??


Basically.  As long as you have the waiver, you are ok. (99.9% of all facilies got the waiver) The proper phraesolgy is just "Runway XX, Position and Hold".
Logged

Matt Stevens
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2006, 10:35:02 PM »

Zotan, I asked too, and apparently you're right, with some qualification.

The current waivers are temporary (30 days, I believe), and the paperwork has to be submitted again for consideration on a more long lasting basis. How it'll be handled after that is still up in the air, so to speak.

The way the FAA is being run these days, who knows how it'll turn out in the end...
Logged
JC_UND_ATC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2006, 11:22:36 PM »

Quote from: ZOTAN
Quote from: Cessna172
Interesting...So if I understand correctly, position and holding on a runway is still acceptable. However, one must use the phrase: "Position and Hold, runway XX." Have I misunderstood??


Basically.  As long as you have the waiver, you are ok. (99.9% of all facilies got the waiver) The proper phraesolgy is just "Runway XX, Position and Hold".


So I wonder how many months/years and tax payer money it took to think of this bright idea when most of the facilities got the waiver......

I can't wait to work for the FAA!  rolleyes
Logged
binky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2006, 12:30:11 PM »

Can someone explain why this has come about?  If the root of the problem is "taxi to position and hold" could be misheard as "taxi to position and roll" then why not simply use "taxi to position" or "line-up"? Why keep "hold" as part of the phraseolgy at all?
Logged
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2006, 12:38:30 PM »

Quote from: binky
Can someone explain why this has come about?  If the root of the problem is "taxi to position and hold" could be misheard as "taxi to position and roll" then why not simply use "taxi to position" or "line-up"? Why keep "hold" as part of the phraseolgy at all?


I don't know where you got that from. The reason behind this is that a very small amount of isolated incidents had occured. When an aircraft was told to TIPH, with another aircraft on final that had already been given landing clearance. The aircraft that is holding on the rwy is then flown over by the landing aircraft. Or in most cases, the arriving pilot will catch this and go around. One case that someone might remember was at LAX about a year ago, IIRC. A SWA 73 was TIPH, and a Asiana 744 was on final. They saw the SWA and went around, missed him vertically by about 150 feet.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2006, 01:07:42 PM »

Whenever I think of position and hold, I think of this accident that occurred in Sarasota, Florida, back in March of 2000.

A C152 was cleared for takeoff and a C172 called ready, to which the tower controller, who had thought the C172 was at the approach end of the runway, instructed the pilot to "taxi into position and hold."  

In reality, the C172 was at an intersection further up the runway.  The C172 then proceeded to roll out onto the runway right in front of the C152, which was at full takeoff power.  Four people were killed:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X20686&ntsbno=MIA00FA103A&akey=1
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2006, 01:08:46 PM »

Quote from: binky
Can someone explain why this has come about?  If the root of the problem is "taxi to position and hold" could be misheard as "taxi to position and roll" then why not simply use "taxi to position" or "line-up"? Why keep "hold" as part of the phraseolgy at all?


Okay, let's take this from an ICAO perspective.

In the UK/Europe, instead of TIPH/P&H, they use 'line up and wait'. Going off your suggestion here, if they line up, there is no such thing as an implied 'wait', and could begin their takeoff roll as they wish as there is nothing explicitly said by ATC to stop them. Imagine doing that in a King Air while the preceding departing plane is heavy. Nice In-n-Out situation* there.

BL.

*Founder of In-n-Out Burger was flying into SNA, and was following a B757. This prop got caught in the 757's wake and crashed. no survivors. This is what fueled the need for 'caution wake turbulence'.
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2006, 03:04:24 PM »

Quote
If the root of the problem is "taxi to position and hold" could be misheard as "taxi to position and roll"


If the word "roll" sounded anything at all like the phrase "cleared for takeoff"  this might be a valid concern...
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2006, 05:26:46 PM »

Quote from: KSYR-pjr
Whenever I think of position and hold, I think of this accident that occurred in Sarasota, Florida, back in March of 2000.


By the way, the following procedure was a direct result of that accident.

3-7-1. GROUND TRAFFIC MOVEMENT
 
e
. If two or more aircraft call the tower ready for departure, one or more at the approach and one or more at the intersection, state the location of the aircraft at the full length of the runway when authorizing that aircraft to taxi into position and hold or when clearing that aircraft for takeoff.

PHRASEOLOGY-
RUNWAY (number), FULL-LENGTH, POSITION AND HOLD.

or

RUNWAY (number) FULL LENGTH, CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF.

EXAMPLE-
"American Four Eighty Two, Runway Three Zero full length, position and hold."
"Cherokee Five Sierra Whiskey, Runway Two Five Right full length, cleared for takeoff."

NOTE-
The controller need not state the location of the aircraft departing the full length of the runway if there are no aircraft holding for departure at an intersection for that same runway.
Logged

Regards
JD
binky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2006, 06:42:46 PM »

To PHL_APP I realize that when controllers make mistakes aircraft that are put to position will be overflown by one on final at best.  I also realize that when a controller makes a mistake and clears someone for takeoff with another at an intersection ahead by mistake causes problems.  My question is what is the motivation for the change in phraseology.  If the controller says:

"American 86 position and hold" or "American 86 taxi into position and hold" with whatever runway you choose with someone on final, how does saying it differently make this unsafe act change?
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338



« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2006, 10:38:49 AM »

Quote from: binky
To PHL_APP I realize that when controllers make mistakes aircraft that are put to position will be overflown by one on final at best.  I also realize that when a controller makes a mistake and clears someone for takeoff with another at an intersection ahead by mistake causes problems.  My question is what is the motivation for the change in phraseology.  If the controller says:

"American 86 position and hold" or "American 86 taxi into position and hold" with whatever runway you choose with someone on final, how does saying it differently make this unsafe act change?


You are confusing two separate changes here. First, the phraseology change from "taxi into position and hold" to "position and hold" was done over a year ago. It has nothing to do with any safety issues and was an attempt to reduce phraseology.  One of the few attempts to reduce verbiage ever.  Most changes add verbiage to appease the attorneys.

Now the next issue, and completely unrelated to the first issue, is the FAA's ill-advised attempt at trying to fix a problem at isolated airports by abolishing position and hold nationwide. Most airports have never had an incident or operational error caused by p&h. It is a historically proven safe procedure. For whatever reasons, certain facilities have had problems with p&h. Instead of addressing that small minority of locations, the FAA took the shotgun approach to fixing it and declared that p&h would be banned nationwide. That decision was made by individuals who haven't seen a headset in several years.

When the people who still wear headsets expressed their utter shock at such an incredible knee-jerk reaction, then the FAA recanted, but short of rescinding the edict, they told facilities to justify why they need p&h. That's called covering your 6. (Think about it.) Now waivers are issued base upon these justifications.

P&H is an incredibly useful and safe tool for controllers. Try to imagine this scenario. Intersecting runways with departures on one and arrivals on another landing at 3 mile intervals. You place an aircraft into position and hold on the departure runway awaiting the arrival to pass through the intersection. You clear the departure for takeoff, he rolls through the intersection just prior to the next arrival crossing the landing threshold on the intersecting arrival runway. A literal ATC ballet. A thing of beauty. Listen to the Vintage SFO recording in the Audio Clips  http://www.liveatc.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=598forum with an SFO airport diagram http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSFO in front of you and try to keep up with that guy. This is exactly what he is doing.

Now, take away the ability to put an aircraft into p&h and you kill that timing. The departure is sitting on a taxiway facing 180° to the departure runway. You clear them for takeoff. How much longer do you think that will take? How much more additional spacing will be required between the arrivals?  I don't know. Neither does the SFO controller. How about when one of these operations doesn't work and you have to send the arrival around when the departure is rolling too slowly?  Talk about an unsafe procedure.

OK, I'm done ranting.

Hope that helps clear up the difference in these two unrelated issues and gives a little background on why the real controllers were so concerned.

w0x0f
Logged
binky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2006, 01:17:06 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up.  The replies described situations caused by bad controlling and seemed to tie that in with P&H versus TIP&H.  Now an additional question I have: from a previous post it says:

"if they line up, there is no such thing as an implied 'wait', and could begin their takeoff roll as they wish as there is nothing explicitly said by ATC to stop them".

Does this actually happen in UK/Europe?  If the controller doesnt tell them to wait then they can depart on their own if told to simply line-up?  Isn't "cleared for takeoff" used?
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338



« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2006, 01:37:31 PM »

Quote from: binky
Thanks for clearing that up.  The replies described situations caused by bad controlling and seemed to tie that in with P&H versus TIP&H.  Now an additional question I have: from a previous post it says:

"if they line up, there is no such thing as an implied 'wait', and could begin their takeoff roll as they wish as there is nothing explicitly said by ATC to stop them".

Does this actually happen in UK/Europe?  If the controller doesnt tell them to wait then they can depart on their own if told to simply line-up?  Isn't "cleared for takeoff" used?


I know the Brits have some sort of phraseology like "line up and wait."  Not sure if that's exactly it or the literal interpretation as far as an implied hold.  I'm pretty sure that "cleared for takeoff" would be required.  Too bad they have their archaic rules which do not allow us to listen in on the ATC frequencies.  Perhaps one of our friends from the UK could chime in.

Cheers!

w0x0f
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2006, 01:46:07 PM »

Quote from: w0x0f
Quote from: binky
Thanks for clearing that up.  The replies described situations caused by bad controlling and seemed to tie that in with P&H versus TIP&H.  Now an additional question I have: from a previous post it says:

"if they line up, there is no such thing as an implied 'wait', and could begin their takeoff roll as they wish as there is nothing explicitly said by ATC to stop them".

Does this actually happen in UK/Europe?  If the controller doesnt tell them to wait then they can depart on their own if told to simply line-up?  Isn't "cleared for takeoff" used?


I know the Brits have some sort of phraseology like "line up and wait."  Not sure if that's exactly it or the literal interpretation as far as an implied hold.  I'm pretty sure that "cleared for takeoff" would be required.  Too bad they have their archaic rules which do not allow us to listen in on the ATC frequencies.  Perhaps one of our friends from the UK could chime in.

Cheers!

w0x0f


'cleared for takeoff is required, yes, but my point is that if you just say 'line up', there is no implied 'wait' there. What is to stop the pilot from rolling 2000 or 3000ft down the runway before hearing 'cleared for takeoff'?

FYI, 'line up and wait' is actually an ICAO standard. You should be able to hear that in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the bulk of western Europe. So hit up an ESSA or EDDF feed, and you should see what I mean.

BL.
Logged
binky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2006, 09:38:08 PM »

"'cleared for takeoff is required, yes, but my point is that if you just say 'line up', there is no implied 'wait' there. What is to stop the pilot from rolling 2000 or 3000ft down the runway before hearing 'cleared for takeoff'?"

Nothing, but if a controller ever saw anything that ridiculous they would tell the plane to exit the runway.  Rolling down the runway would constitute taxiing down the runway, and not taxiing into the assigned location for departure. Have you ever heard of an aircraft stopping on the runway then asking if they can exit on a taxiway after landing because they were only cleared to land?
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 964


« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2006, 01:01:07 PM »

Quote from: binky
"'cleared for takeoff is required, yes, but my point is that if you just say 'line up', there is no implied 'wait' there. What is to stop the pilot from rolling 2000 or 3000ft down the runway before hearing 'cleared for takeoff'?"

Nothing, but if a controller ever saw anything that ridiculous they would tell the plane to exit the runway.  Rolling down the runway would constitute taxiing down the runway, and not taxiing into the assigned location for departure. Have you ever heard of an aircraft stopping on the runway then asking if they can exit on a taxiway after landing because they were only cleared to land?


Actually, yes, because the controller didn't give them any instructions on what to do after landing; something controllers must always do:

Quote

AAA123, turn right at A6, Cross runway 25R, contact ground .1


All "cleared to land" means is that they are cleared to land on the runway assigned to them. Without saying anything explicit, you introduce too much ambiguity. in ATC, ambiguity = liability. You must always be explicit. Hence, "position and hold", "line up and wait".

BL.
Logged
JohnM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2006, 10:08:18 PM »

Quote from: w0x0f
I know the Brits have some sort of phraseology like "line up and wait."  Not sure if that's exactly it or the literal interpretation as far as an implied hold.  I'm pretty sure that "cleared for takeoff" would be required.  Too bad they have their archaic rules which do not allow us to listen in on the ATC frequencies.  Perhaps one of our friends from the UK could chime in.

Cheers!

w0x0f


Line up and wait is used in the UK. It is the same as position and hold. Motivation is that 'line up and wait' cannot be confused with 'hold short'.

For those that are interested: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF

CAP413 is the UK Radio Manual - and all pilots have to learn and then sit a test before bieng issued a radio licence. A radio licence is required to operate a radio in the UK.

John.
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!