Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 12:14:47 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)
| | |-+  INbound...New ATC ground phraseology
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: INbound...New ATC ground phraseology  (Read 10912 times)
Ion the Sky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« on: April 26, 2010, 08:24:06 AM »

Starting June 30, ground controllers will have to issue manditory hold short or crossing to all runways when taxiing to and from the runway. At one point on our field one inactive rwy has to be crossed 3 times. Cannot give crossing of two rwys at one time either. We've been practing this new procedure and its sucks, especially when you have a problem child on the field. The OE/OD's (operational error/operational deviation) are going to be plentiful on bothe ends.
Logged
captray
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


G4 in Czech Republic


« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2010, 11:23:52 AM »

Are you in the US?

What would the taxi clearence be like?

N2345 taxi to runway 26 via charlie and echo hold short of runway 32.

or is there  another way to say it?
Logged

Cancel the IFR~!
aevins
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253



« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2010, 11:35:55 AM »

"N2345, runway 26, taxi via charlie and echo, hold short 22."
Logged
ctroeger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2010, 11:44:31 AM »

Isn't this already done??

I feel like I get instructions like N400FA taxi to Runway 9R via Alpha 1, Alpha, hold short runway 36 all the time...
Logged
aevins
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253



« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2010, 12:14:29 PM »

Yes, the new procedure effective 6/30 eliminates the "taxi to" phraseology when issuing taxi instructions that do not involve a holding instruction.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N7110.528.pdf
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2010, 01:01:12 PM »

According to 7110.528, a runway crossing clearance will be required to cross each active, inactive, and/or closed runways and each clearance may only be issued after the aircraft crosses the previous runway intersection if the taxi route crosses multiple runways.  Talk about an unnecessary increase in frequency congestion, runway incursions, and OEs/ODs.

The more crucial issue is the lack of understanding among pilots for no fault of their own, simply because they have not heard a thing about the upcoming change before, on, or after June 30th.  There certainly has not been much in the way of pilot notification at the present time at least from my perspective (nothing from FAASafety.gov, AOPA, EAA, etc.)
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2010, 01:16:24 PM »

According to 7110.528, a runway crossing clearance will be required to cross each active, inactive, and/or closed runways and each clearance may only be issued after the aircraft crosses the previous runway intersection if the taxi route crosses multiple runways.  Talk about an unnecessary increase in frequency congestion, runway incursions, and OEs/ODs.

The more crucial issue is the lack of understanding among pilots for no fault of their own, simply because they have not heard a thing about the upcoming change before, on, or after June 30th.  There certainly has not been much in the way of pilot notification at the present time at least from my perspective (nothing from FAASafety.gov, AOPA, EAA, etc.)

Even more so, this kinda makes FAR 91.129(i) rather obsolete:

Quote
A clearance to “taxi to” the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to “taxi to” any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

This has been discussed quite a bit around the VATSIM forums, but I'd love to get some input/opinions from Tower/Local controllers here. Do you think it will add to the number of incursions and congestion on frequency? Also, anything from NATCA on it?

BL.
Logged
captray
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


G4 in Czech Republic


« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2010, 05:45:59 PM »

As stated above, with 2 months to go and I have heard nothing about this.
Well, fore warned is fore armed.......
Logged

Cancel the IFR~!
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2010, 12:25:13 AM »

Isn't this already done??

I feel like I get instructions like N400FA taxi to Runway 9R via Alpha 1, Alpha, hold short runway 36 all the time...

If you did, ATC definitely was using horrid phraseology. According to the .65, you should have been given:

"N400FA, Runway 9R, taxi via Alpha One, Alpha, hold short of runway 36".

If they didn't want to give you any hold short instructions (whether it be to hold short of another runway or a taxiway), they would have told you "N400FA, taxi to runway 9R via Alpha One, Alpha."

Now with this change, it requires ATC to issue a hold short instruction for ANY runway crossing, whether it is your assigned runway, if the runway is active, inactive, or even closed.

Huge difference, and like I said, renders FAR 91.129(i) obsolete.

BL.
Logged
Cap747
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2010, 04:07:44 AM »

I don't know all of it, but I think wat was new once is now new again....

I remember this flightsim program, Flight Unlimited, where this phraseology is very common at SFO and SEA  when you want to cross an active. so wonder where FAA got this from  smiley
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 04:10:35 AM by Cap747 » Logged
Dave_B
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2010, 12:42:39 PM »

I don't know all of it, but I think wat was new once is now new again....

I remember this flightsim program, Flight Unlimited, where this phraseology is very common at SFO and SEA  when you want to cross an active. so wonder where FAA got this from  smiley

This is different. It is unlikely that the FAA got this idea from your game.

The video game dialogue notwithstanding, it would have not been completely uncommon to give specific clearance  to cross actives that were not the assigned takeoff runway,  if for no other reason than to reduce confusion (since a taxiing pilot might see it is in use and stop to ask) and keep things moving.

The thing that is big here is that now you will need clearance to cross inactive and closed runways. That is huge. I can see controllers hating this. Especially if they can only give one clearance at a time. Just a few guys practicing touch and goes at some small airport that has the right arrangement will drive the poor ground guy NUTS!
Logged
atcman23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2010, 04:02:06 PM »

I can tell you that controllers already hate this.  I got briefed on this today and it will now turn one transmission into several for many people.  Not so much of a problem where I'm at, but now you can only give one crossing clearance at a time.  It's overkill and it's the FAA trying to get behind the controls.
Logged

Mark Spencer
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2010, 09:51:34 PM »

I can tell you that controllers already hate this.  I got briefed on this today and it will now turn one transmission into several for many people.  Not so much of a problem where I'm at, but now you can only give one crossing clearance at a time.  It's overkill and it's the FAA trying to get behind the controls.

I can totally see and understand why ATC hates it. Thanks for the clarification on that.

I just sum it up as how many instructions need to be given to get from the east side of 31R to the west side of 31L at KDFW, with the assumption that all of the 17s/35s and 18s/36s are closed/inactive.

That alone should indicate how bad of an idea this is.

BL.
Logged
Ion the Sky
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2010, 09:21:51 AM »

Here's a reference to this order;
Www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!