Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2014, 12:16:56 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)
| | |-+  Position and Hold soon no more?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Position and Hold soon no more?  (Read 8074 times)
n57flyguy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« on: March 09, 2006, 08:54:19 PM »

FAA waives new takeoff safety rule
Busiest airports get temporary exemption

By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published March 8, 2006


The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday eased up on imminent plans to impose revised airport procedures aimed at reducing the risk of an arriving airplane flying over or landing on top of another plane waiting on a runway to depart.

The changes, which the National Transportation Safety Board had recommended to the FAA over the past six years, were announced last week and had been scheduled to begin March 20, at the peak of the spring-break travel period.

The proposed tightening of rules governing how planes line up at airports for takeoff would appear to help prevent a rare type of accident that could cause hundreds of deaths in a single collision.

The FAA's notice to airport air-traffic control towers last week said mistakes are continuing to occur involving planes taxiing onto an active runway when an approaching plane is about to land on the same runway or an intersecting runway.

On Feb. 17, a controller at Los Angeles International Airport directed three aircraft to use the same runway, the FAA said. A departing SkyWest turboprop was cleared to use a runway on which a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 was about to land. The controller also cleared an Air Canada jet to cross the other end of the same runway.

Other incidents have occurred in recent years in Salt Lake City, Ft. Lauderdale and at Midway Airport in Chicago, officials said.

But the FAA, reacting to related safety issues and concerns about flight delays ballooning, told the airlines, the air-traffic controllers and pilots unions on Tuesday that it would grant at least temporary waivers from the new rules, starting with the nation's 35 busiest airports.

The FAA won't force airports to change their takeoff procedures, "but by March 20 airport towers will have to explain to us why they want to continue using it," said Russell Chew, the FAA's chief operating officer.

As a result, no immediate changes are expected at O'Hare International Airport, Midway or Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, officials said. But several hundred medium-size and smaller airports could lose an air-traffic tool they have used to keep flights bound for larger airports on schedule.

The controllers union said the FAA's planned change would add to congestion at already crowded airports, reducing the number of planes able to arrive and depart each hour by as much as 20 percent.

Under existing rules, a plane that is No. 2 in line for departure may taxi onto the runway and stop as soon as the plane in front starts its takeoff roll. Once the first plane is airborne and at least 6,000 feet down the runway, the second plane begins its takeoff roll and the next plane in line on the taxiway moves into takeoff position on the runway.

Air-traffic controllers call the procedure "locked and loaded," because it facilitates launching planes at tight intervals and keeps airports running efficiently.

Under the revisions the FAA was set to impose, planes in the No. 2 departure position would not be permitted to begin taxiing onto the runway until after the plane taking off in front was airborne.

The controllers union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, contends the FAA overreacted to a small number of high-profile cases in which human error caused arriving and departing planes to get perilously close to each other.

Controllers said the FAA's fix could unintentionally intensify risks on runways used for landings and takeoffs. Such a scenario would involve a controller directing a plane waiting on a taxiway to proceed to the runway for takeoff while an approaching plane was still 5 miles from touching down. A miscommunication between controller and pilot, or a delay in the plane entering the runway, could lead to a close call between the arriving and departing planes, potentially even a fly-over incident that could lead to a crash.

"You almost must already have the pilot on the runway in position so he is ready to roll when you tell him to," said Doug Fralick, director of safety and technology at the controllers union. "If the plane is still sitting on the taxiway, you lose your predictability because it takes time for the engines to spool up power and the plane to get into position."

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/12_10a.../191713-1.html

What do you think?

Paul
Logged

Fly to live, live to fly!
Check out www.n57.com
ngreed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2006, 08:57:37 PM »

I dissagree, I see the side of the FAA, But I am with ATC, it is a great tool...
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2006, 09:07:57 PM »

I had a discussion going last summer (August or so) regarding this issue on another e-mail list. My notion was that the TIPH ban had already been put into effect and that the ATM at each facility had to submit paperwork  for a waiver stating that TIPH was necessary at his/her facility (if it was).  IMO it is once again another blatant attempt by the FAA to threaten the NAS's safety and efficiency.  These [possible] upcoming restrictions put so much of a burden on the controllers that the safe and efficient flow of traffic at the present time just won't be possible in the future.

It will back the system up so much, it will be fairly impossible to keep the flow moving smoothly.  While I can respectfully understand the accidents that have occured do to the "TIPH instruction" I do not see how this was a wide-spread threat to the NAS, so large that such a ban will affect all users in the US.

I've heard rumor that "after March 20, the TIPH will be limited to towers where the local, ground, and supervisor positions are always individually manned -- if they ever combine positions, TIPH is out. So, the big, busy towers like LAX where all the TIPH-related accidents occur will still have TIPH, but the lightly used towers with less staffing that don't seem to have these accidents (probably due to low traffic volume) will lose it." - From an unofficial source.

The FAA wants to keep everything a deep dark secret or a big blatant lie.  What can I say?  It's the FAA.

Jason
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2006, 09:22:03 PM »

Yes, P&H is going away, at least at the majority of towered airports.  I received an email from my FBO at Syracuse, NY, that stated that P&H will be gone by mid-March.  This email came on the heals of a meeting with  local ATC.

Apparently the incident at Los Angeles airport a few weeks ago where there were three aircraft heading towards each other (two on the ground and one landing, I believe) has hastened the move towards this restriction.

There was mention in the aviation newsgroups that airports that have all tower positions staffed individually (ground, clearance, and tower) might be eligible for a waiver, but since the large, class B airports are the ones that seem to have the most runway incursions relating to P&H (or certainly the most sensational incidents, like the LAX episode a few weeks ago), this goes against the point of eliminating P&H.

I am concerned that this elimination will have some negative and unintended consequences, not the least of which will be longer delays at the large airports and perhaps even more takeoff accidents, since pilots will rush more often to take a "departure" slot while an inbound is still five nm out and closing, rather than wait.
Logged

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

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2006, 09:35:34 PM »

Quote from: KSYR-pjr
I am concerned that this elimination will have some negative and unintended consequences, not the least of which will be longer delays at the large airports and perhaps even more takeoff accidents, since pilots will rush more often to take a "departure" slot while an inbound is still five nm out and closing, rather than wait.


I agree with you, Peter.  Not only will the pilots be rushing, but now controllers will be trying to push planes out faster by clearing them for takeoff, instead of safely putting them into position and hold.  

ATCS's will be pressured to clear aircraft for takeoff so that the flow stays moving, but may in the end, cause more problems [specifically safety and efficiency] than the FAA intended (...if I had a dime for everytime I've heard  that one occur...)

Here's a blog entry from NATCA's president, John Carr on the subject if anyone is interested.  Take both the FAA and NATCA's opinions into consideration, as both are very different organizations.
Logged
CntrllrATC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2006, 10:32:29 PM »

Take a look at the airport layout of my airport, BDR, no taxiway goes to the end of any runway.
Now, what happens when I clear an aircraft for takeoff with a back taxi to full length and during his positioning on the runway my anticipated separation deteriorates to where I need to cancel his takeoff clearance?
Can he be held on the runway? If so, what's the difference from TIPH?
Lots of questions will be generated about this procedure or should I say lack of procedure in the near future.
We of course will comply with this order to the fullest extent and hope we can keep the delays this will cause to a minimum. It will definately make for some interesting listening for the future.
Logged

Pull back on yoke houses get smaller, Push forward and houses get bigger.
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2006, 10:58:10 PM »

Quote from: CntrllrATC
We of course will comply with this order to the fullest extent and hope we can keep the delays this will cause to a minimum. It will definately make for some interesting listening for the future.


It sure will.  

On a side note, it's great to hear from you, Rob.  How's life been at BDR?  How's the baby doing as well?

Jason
Logged
Fryy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2006, 02:38:32 AM »

Check out the AudioClip portion of the forums, I posted a clip between a COA and SFO_TWR having a little discussion about not being able to do position and holds anymore. Thought it would fit right in here.
Logged

Volunteer KSUU feeder
http://d.liveatc.net/ksuu.m3u
CntrllrATC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2006, 11:17:30 AM »

Hiya Jason,
 Doing great here. The baby is amazing and turns a year old on the 15th, time sure does fly.
I'll finally be doing my Private Pilot checkride around the end of the month with Wally.
How is everything with you? Hope all is well. Stop in sometime and visit the Tower.

Talk to ya later,
Rob
Logged

Pull back on yoke houses get smaller, Push forward and houses get bigger.
ernie1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2006, 01:10:09 PM »

I can't see how this could increase safety at all at an airport like SFO where normal operation (wind permitting) is to land 28 L&R, depart 1 L&R, where 28 & 1 intersect midfield.

If a departing aircraft is not in position ready to roll at the time arriving aircraft clears the intersection, any additional delay in getting it into position can only cut the safety margin until the next landing aircraft arrives.

How can this increase safety?

What are they thinking?
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2006, 02:17:04 PM »

Quote from: ernie1
How can this increase safety?


Simple answer: It doesn't cheesy

Quote from: ernie1
What are they thinking?


It's the FAA; they either weren't ....or this is a focal point on how hard the FAA tries to make more of a mess of the NAS.  I do know plenty of FAA employees and I have a lot of respect and pride in them.  It's the administrators in D.C. that scare me.
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2006, 02:19:21 PM »

Quote from: CntrllrATC
Hiya Jason,
 Doing great here. The baby is amazing and turns a year old on the 15th, time sure does fly.
I'll finally be doing my Private Pilot checkride around the end of the month with Wally.
How is everything with you? Hope all is well. Stop in sometime and visit the Tower.

Talk to ya later,
Rob


Hey Rob,

Congratulations and happy [early] birthday to your baby!  Let me know when the date gets decided for the checkride and I'll keep the feed on BDR-only (although I'm sure you can get the tapes)

I'm well and have been flying and learning.  Life is congested, but it's better than being bored, right!?

I'll PM you/e-mail you so I can setup a time to visit the tower while you're on shift or on break.

Regards,
Jason
Logged
ZOTAN
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2006, 11:56:05 PM »

I was talking to a controlelr at KSAN, and come March 20th TIPH will no longer be authorized there. He was saying though that the airlines will start to complain due to the longer turn around times and it should be back at the end of the month.  cheesy
Logged

Matt Stevens
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2006, 02:04:08 PM »

Hot off the AvWeb press:

Quote from: AvWeb's AvFlash 12.10b
By March 20, air traffic facilities that want to continue to use taxi-into-position-and-hold (TIPH) need to notify the FAA, spokeswoman Laura Brown told AVweb on Tuesday. They don't have to eliminate the procedure. "They can keep using it," she said. But they will have to conduct a safety analysis to show it can be used safely, and also show that there is a safety or capacity reason to justify its use. "They should stop using it if they don't need to," she said. "But if they want to keep using it, they need to make the case for why to use it." The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), reacting to an FAA notice that went out last week, says eliminating TIPH would decrease safety, increase delays, and lower capacity. The policy will allow larger airports to get waivers and continue the procedure, while "hundreds of innocent other smaller airports" will have to abandon its use, NATCA President John Carr wrote in his blog yesterday. "This was a poorly thought out decision on the FAA's part. They are bowing to NTSB pressure because of a few high profile incidents," he wrote.


more...

Quote
In a general notice (GENOT) sent out to air traffic facilities, the FAA says that air traffic managers must review the impact that airport configuration and local conditions may have on TIPH operations, and prepare a facility directive that prescribes local procedures. The GENOT (click through for the pdf file) also stipulates what staffing must be in place and how workloads can be distributed. The action followed a high-profile runway incursion that took place at Los Angeles International Airport last month. A departing Skywest turboprop was told to taxi onto the same runway on which a Southwest Airlines 737 had been cleared to land. At the same time, a taxiing Air Canada jet was told that it could cross the other end of the runway on its way to the terminals. The Skywest pilot saw the 737 on final and stopped short of the runway. The 737 landed without incident, but passed less than 300 feet from the Skywest airplane. The FAA also had issued a GENOT last August asking all ATC towers to review their use of the procedure.
Logged
Tomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2006, 10:28:12 AM »

Does this mean that POSITION AND HOLD is just being tightened up and not "taken away" completely?  It looks good to me... it appears the FAA has good intent, but like always, might not see the other side quite right.  Smiley
Logged

Serving you with CYVR... =)
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 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!