Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 06:21:31 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  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 12166 times)
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: 548


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: 322



« 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: 322



« 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: 913


« 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: 913


« 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
binky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2006, 10:29:19 AM »

I'm not one to read all of the air regulations, but doesnt it say that after landing unless specifically told otherwise by ATC, an aircraft is to exit via the first available taxiway and they may not vacate onto another runway? Or does it say "if cleared to land you must come to a complete stop on the runway and hold until instructed otherwise"? I personally have seen many aircraft exit a runway on their own after landing, exit and contact ground control without the tower telling them to do so.  So is this a violation because they didnt stop on the runway and wait for explicit instructions as a post suggested they should? I agree there can be liability with using certain phraseologies but ATC and pilots do exercise a wee bit of common sense like everyone in the real world.  For example I have heard 'taxi to position' with no wait issued on the CYYZ feed (even to Non-Canadian aircraft) and have yet to hear of an aircraft departing on their own. So it seems to me people would rather come up with the most unlikely, obscure examples to attempt to justify their point that 1 out of say 100,000 pilots will actually depart without a takeoff clearance when told taxi to position without the 'wait'. Perhaps if also told to 'wait' maybe 1 out of 500,000 would still depart, and maybe to be even safer by saying 'taxi to position and wait, do not takeoff' only 1 out of 1,000,000 would still depart.
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2006, 07:43:21 PM »

Quote from: binky
I'm not one to read all of the air regulations, but doesnt it say that after landing unless specifically told otherwise by ATC, an aircraft is to exit via the first available taxiway and they may not vacate onto another runway...


Quote from: The AIM

4-3-20. Exiting the Runway After Landing

The following procedures should be followed after landing and reaching taxi speed.

a. Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots shall not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

b. Taxi clear of the runway unless otherwise directed by ATC. In the absence of ATC instructions the pilot is expected to taxi clear of the landing runway by clearing the hold position marking associated with the landing runway even if that requires the aircraft to protrude into or cross another taxiway or ramp area. This does not authorize an aircraft to cross a subsequent taxiway/runway/ramp after clearing the landing runway.

NOTE-
1. The tower will issue the pilot instructions which will normally permit the aircraft to enter another taxiway, runway, or ramp area when required to taxi clear of the runway by clearing the hold position marking associated with the landing runway.

c. Stop the aircraft after clearing the runway if instructions have not been received from ATC.

d. Immediately change to ground control frequency when advised by the tower and obtain a taxi clearance.


Quote from: Pilot/Controller Glossary


POSITION AND HOLD- Used by ATC to inform a pilot to taxi onto the departure runway in takeoff position and hold. It is not authorization for takeoff. It is used when takeoff clearance cannot immediately be issued because of traffic or other reasons.
Logged

Regards
JD
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2006, 08:38:41 PM »

By the way, here is the official GENOT that got this whole windfall started:

GENOT RWA 6/13 SVC B
NOTICE:  N7110.439
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO TIPH PROCEDURES
EFFECTIVE: MARCH 20, 2006


BACKGROUND: TIPH OPERATIONAL ERRORS CONTINUE TO OCCUR. WE REVIEWED THESE EVENTS AND DETERMINED THAT CHANGES TO FAAO 7110.65 ARE NEEDED TO MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTORS THAT COMMONLY OCCURRED IN THESE EVENTS.

PLEASE AMMEND FAAO 7110.65R, PARAGRAPHS 3-9-4C, 3-9-4G, AND 3-10- 5B AS FOLLOWS:

PARAGRAPH 3-9-4C: WHEN AN AIRCRAFT IS AUTHORIZED TO TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD, INFORM IT OF THE CLOSEST TRAFFIC THAT IS CLEARED TO LAND, TOUCH-AND-GO, STOP-AND-GO, OR UNRESTRICTED LOW APPROACH TO THE SAME OR PARALLEL RUNWAY SEPARATED BY LESS THAN 2,500 FEET.

EXAMPLE –
"UNITED FIVE, RUNWAY TWO FOUR LEFT, POSITION AND HOLD. TRAFFIC A BOEING SEVEN THIRTY SEVEN, SIX MILE FINAL, RUNWAY TWO FOUR RIGHT."

PARAGRAPH 3-9-4G: DELETE THE ACRONYM USN, PARAGRAPH SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: DO NOT AUTHORIZE AIRCRAFT TO TAXI INTO TAKEOFF POSITION TO HOLD SIMULTANEOUSLY ON INTERSECTING RUNWAYS.

PARAGRAPHS 3-10-5B: "USN NOT APPLICABLE." INFORM THE CLOSEST AIRCRAFT THAT IS CLEARED TO LAND, TOUCH-AND-GO, STOP-AND-GO, OR UNRESTRICTED LOW APPROACHES WHEN THERE IS TRAFIC AUTHORIZED TO TAXI INTO POSITION AND HOLD ON THE SAME OR PARALLEL RUNWAY SEPARATED BY LESS THAN 2,500 FEET.

EXAMPLE-
"DELTA ONE, RUNWAY TWO FOUR RIGHT, CLEARED TO LAND. TRAFFIC HOLDING IN POSITION, RUNWAY TWO FOUR LEFT." ALL AFFECTED PERSONNEL SHALL BE BRIEFED ON THE CONTENT OF THIS GENOT PRIOR TO ASSIGNMENT TO AN OPERATIONAL POSITION.

Here's the source URL:
http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airspace/tiph20060227.php#atc
Logged

Regards
JD
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 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!