New Aviation Terminology

[DeltaDeltaDelta]

Recently I dug up an article from some magazine concerning the Tenerife
accident when two 747s collided due to language miscomprehension by one of
the pilots. Later in the text, the author wrote that ICAO was working on a
new set of aviation terminology that is supposed to be an "aviation
Esperanto", combining language rules and words of several world languages to
avoid further confusion. Anybody have any detailed info on this? (the
article is vintage 1997).

Triple Delta

[Teacherjh]

>>
ICAO was working on a
new set of aviation terminology that is supposed to be an "aviation
Esperanto", combining language rules and words of several world languages to
avoid further confusion.
<<

Isn't that what the FARs are written in? It's certainly not English!

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[John Harper]

What's needed is Europanto, at least in Europe. Here's just
one example:

http://www.europanto.contagions.com/euro1.html#1

The site has lots more.

Actually there are some changes as a result of Tenerife. For
example in the UK the word "cleared" is used only in "cleared
for takeoff". Other uses (e.g. for taxi) use some other word,
"permission" iirc.

John


"DeltaDeltaDelta" > wrote in message
...
> Recently I dug up an article from some magazine concerning the Tenerife
> accident when two 747s collided due to language miscomprehension by one of
> the pilots. Later in the text, the author wrote that ICAO was working on a
> new set of aviation terminology that is supposed to be an "aviation
> Esperanto", combining language rules and words of several world languages
to
> avoid further confusion. Anybody have any detailed info on this? (the
> article is vintage 1997).
>
> Triple Delta
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"John Harper" > wrote in message news:1069786900.839440@sj-nntpcache-3...

> Actually there are some changes as a result of Tenerife. For
> example in the UK the word "cleared" is used only in "cleared
> for takeoff". Other uses (e.g. for taxi) use some other word,
> "permission" iirc.
>
How do they read your IFR clearance to you? That was the
issue at Tenerife (well part of it). I don't believe that is any
resolved now in the US...

[Dave Butler]

DeltaDeltaDelta wrote:
> Recently I dug up an article from some magazine concerning the Tenerife
> accident when two 747s collided due to language miscomprehension by one of
> the pilots.

I thought the Tenerife accident happened because the KLM captain suffered from
excessive self-esteem.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Bob Gardner]

From 3-7-1 in the Air Traffic Control Handbook:

"b. Do not use the word "cleared" in conjunction with authorization for
aircraft to taxi or equipment/vehicle/personnel operations. Use the prefix
"taxi," "proceed," or "hold," as appropriate, for aircraft instructions and
"proceed" or "hold" for equipment/vehicles/personnel."

Bob Gardner

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1069786900.839440@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> > Actually there are some changes as a result of Tenerife. For
> > example in the UK the word "cleared" is used only in "cleared
> > for takeoff". Other uses (e.g. for taxi) use some other word,
> > "permission" iirc.
> >
> How do they read your IFR clearance to you? That was the
> issue at Tenerife (well part of it). I don't believe that is any
> resolved now in the US...
>
>
>

[Paul Sengupta]

This may have been after they started rolling and the 1st officer tried
to question whether they had actually been cleared for take-off.

The big thing is that the words "take-off" can now not be used other
than "cleared for take-off". It may be the case that the Dutch captain
heard the words "cleared" and "take-off" and thought that was his cue
to go.

Paul

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> I thought the Tenerife accident happened because the KLM captain suffered
from
> excessive self-esteem.

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:clOwb.106635$Dw6.513567@attbi_s02...
> From 3-7-1 in the Air Traffic Control Handbook:
>
> "b. Do not use the word "cleared" in conjunction with authorization for
> aircraft to taxi or equipment/vehicle/personnel operations. Use the prefix
> "taxi," "proceed," or "hold," as appropriate, for aircraft instructions and
> "proceed" or "hold" for equipment/vehicles/personnel."
>
That is fine Bob, but immaterial.
The Tenerife crash invovled the KLM flight being in position in hold. The
first officer called in saying they were "ready for their ATC clearance."
What he got back was an IFR clearance"
"Cleared to Papa Beacon ...

This exact same thing would happen today at many US airports (let's avoid
going back to the clearance on request discussion).

3-7-1 doesn't seem to have done anything to alleviate what happened at Tenerife.

[Bob Gardner]

Ignore Tenerife for the moment. John Harper said that in Europe, the word
"cleared" was no longer used except for takeoff clearances. In your reply,
you said, in so many words, that nothing similar had been done in the US. My
post was intended to point out that something has indeed been done in the
US.

Bob Gardner

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:clOwb.106635$Dw6.513567@attbi_s02...
> > From 3-7-1 in the Air Traffic Control Handbook:
> >
> > "b. Do not use the word "cleared" in conjunction with authorization for
> > aircraft to taxi or equipment/vehicle/personnel operations. Use the
prefix
> > "taxi," "proceed," or "hold," as appropriate, for aircraft instructions
and
> > "proceed" or "hold" for equipment/vehicles/personnel."
> >
> That is fine Bob, but immaterial.
> The Tenerife crash invovled the KLM flight being in position in hold.
The
> first officer called in saying they were "ready for their ATC clearance."
> What he got back was an IFR clearance"
> "Cleared to Papa Beacon ...
>
> This exact same thing would happen today at many US airports (let's avoid
> going back to the clearance on request discussion).
>
> 3-7-1 doesn't seem to have done anything to alleviate what happened at
Tenerife.
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:8dPwb.304758$Tr4.962384@attbi_s03...
> Ignore Tenerife for the moment. John Harper said that in Europe, the word
> "cleared" was no longer used except for takeoff clearances. In your reply,
> you said, in so many words, that nothing similar had been done in the US. My
> post was intended to point out that something has indeed been done in the
> US.

He was following up comments on Tenerife, and I asked "how do you get your IFR clearances."
I was specifically asking how his would have hellped Tenerife (perhaps there was
more to it than he was saying).,

Your comments are off the topic.

[Teacherjh]

>>
The Tenerife crash invovled the KLM flight being in position in hold. The
first officer called in saying they were "ready for their ATC clearance."
What he got back was an IFR clearance"
"Cleared to Papa Beacon ...

<<

What were they doing in position for takeoff without an IFR clearance in
hand???

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1069786900.839440@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> Actually there are some changes as a result of Tenerife. For
> example in the UK the word "cleared" is used only in "cleared
> for takeoff". Other uses (e.g. for taxi) use some other word,
> "permission" iirc.
>

What is used for IFR clearances?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> What were they doing in position for takeoff without an IFR clearance in
> hand???
>

It's a rather small airport and several rather large aircraft had diverted
there for weather. They were preparing to depart, awaiting their clearance.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> This may have been after they started rolling and the 1st officer tried
> to question whether they had actually been cleared for take-off.
>
> The big thing is that the words "take-off" can now not be used other
> than "cleared for take-off". It may be the case that the Dutch captain
> heard the words "cleared" and "take-off" and thought that was his cue
> to go.
>

ATC never used the C-word. While PanAm was still taxiing on the runway KLM
was told, "OK. Standby for takeoff. I will call you." KLM then began
takeoff roll, ATC's next transmission was to PanAm:

ATC: "Roger. Pan Am 1736, report the runway clear."

Pan Am: "OK. Will report when we are clear."

ATC: "Thank you."

The KLM CVR recorded the copilot saying to the captain, "Did he not clear
the runway then?" "Oh yes" was the captain's reply as he continued his
takeoff.

[Ron Natalie]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message ...
> >>
> The Tenerife crash invovled the KLM flight being in position in hold. The
> first officer called in saying they were "ready for their ATC clearance."
> What he got back was an IFR clearance"
> "Cleared to Papa Beacon ...
>
> <<
>
> What were they doing in position for takeoff without an IFR clearance in
> hand???

Waiting.

[John Harper]

I've never tried to fly IFR in Europe so I have no idea. Maybe
somebody else can answer...?

John

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:8dPwb.304758$Tr4.962384@attbi_s03...
> > Ignore Tenerife for the moment. John Harper said that in Europe, the
word
> > "cleared" was no longer used except for takeoff clearances. In your
reply,
> > you said, in so many words, that nothing similar had been done in the
US. My
> > post was intended to point out that something has indeed been done in
the
> > US.
>
> He was following up comments on Tenerife, and I asked "how do you get your
IFR clearances."
> I was specifically asking how his would have hellped Tenerife (perhaps
there was
> more to it than he was saying).,
>
> Your comments are off the topic.
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

> ATC never used the C-word. While PanAm was still taxiing on the runway KLM
> was told, "OK. Standby for takeoff. I will call you." KLM then began
> takeoff roll, ATC's next transmission was to PanAm:

KLM: KLM 4805 is now ready for takeoff, and we're waiting for our ATC clearance.
TWR: KLM 8705 you are CLEARED to the papa beacon climb to and maintain
flight level 290 right turn after take-off proceed with heading 040 until
intercepting the 305 radial from Las Palmas VOR.
KLM: Roger sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level 90, right turn out
050 until intercepting the 305 and we're now at take-off.
TWR: OK. Stand by for take-off, I will call you.
PAN: We're still taxiing down the runway, Clipper 1736

They did use the C word in delivering the IFR clearance. The CVR out of the
KLM shows the captain saying (in Dutch) "we're going" between the OK and
the Stand By instruction.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:
>TWR: OK. Stand by for take-off, I will call you.
>PAN: We're still taxiing down the runway, Clipper 1736
>
>They did use the C word in delivering the IFR clearance. The CVR out of the
>KLM shows the captain saying (in Dutch) "we're going" between the OK and
>the Stand By instruction.

And the transmission from PAN was stepped on.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> KLM: KLM 4805 is now ready for takeoff, and we're waiting for our ATC
clearance.
> TWR: KLM 8705 you are CLEARED to the papa beacon climb to and maintain
> flight level 290 right turn after take-off proceed with heading
040 until
> intercepting the 305 radial from Las Palmas VOR.
> KLM: Roger sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level 90, right
turn out
> 050 until intercepting the 305 and we're now at take-off.
> TWR: OK. Stand by for take-off, I will call you.
> PAN: We're still taxiing down the runway, Clipper 1736
>
> They did use the C word in delivering the IFR clearance. The CVR out of
the
> KLM shows the captain saying (in Dutch) "we're going" between the OK and
> the Stand By instruction.
>

Yes, they used the C-word in delivering the IFR clearance. How would they
issue an IFR clearance without using it? But Paul Sengupta wrote, "It may
be the case that the Dutch captain heard the words "cleared" and "take-off"
and thought that was his cue to go." ATC said "OK. Stand by for take-off,
I will call you." No C-word.

[Teacherjh]

>> They were preparing to depart, awaiting their clearance.

You don't await IFR clearance sitting on the runway. I don't care what kind of
airplane you are, or why you diverted. When waiting for an IFR clearance, you
stay off the runway.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't await IFR clearance sitting on the runway. I don't care what
kind of
> airplane you are, or why you diverted. When waiting for an IFR clearance,
you
> stay off the runway.
>

At a controlled field you wait where ATC tells you to wait.

[Teacherjh]

>> At a controlled field you wait where ATC tells you to wait.

I suppose, but what right-minded controller would plant a 737 on a runway to
wait for an IFR clearance? In my mind, an ex-controller, or a =very= unusual
circumstance.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Don Tuite]

On 26 Nov 2003 05:48:24 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>> At a controlled field you wait where ATC tells you to wait.
>
>I suppose, but what right-minded controller would plant a 737 on a runway to
>wait for an IFR clearance? In my mind, an ex-controller, or a =very= unusual
>circumstance.

I dunno. A jetport in the Azores probably *is* an unusual place. I
wonder what the daily traffic volume is.

Don

[Matthew Waugh]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> I dunno. A jetport in the Azores probably *is* an unusual place. I
> wonder what the daily traffic volume is.

To go back to the original crash - at the time the airport was littered with
large airliners because the weather in Europe was horrible and they'd all
landed there to wait it out. So they were back-taxing aircraft on the active
runway because the taxi-ways were full.

It was an unusual day at that airport, it became infamous!

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

[Julian Scarfe]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1069786900.839440@sj-nntpcache-3...

> Actually there are some changes as a result of Tenerife. For
> example in the UK the word "cleared" is used only in "cleared
> for takeoff". Other uses (e.g. for taxi) use some other word,
> "permission" iirc.

That's not quite the case, though you're on the right lines. In the UK (and
in other states that adhere to ICAO phraseology) the words *"take-off"* are
only used as part of a clearance to take off. Prior to that the word
"departure" is used:

ATC: "G-ABCD after departure turn left heading ya de ya de ya... " (might
include an IFR clearance)
Aircraft:"After departure turn left heading ya de ya de ya... G-ABCD"
....
Aircraft: "G-ABCD ready for departure"
ATC: "G-ABCD cleared for take-off"
Aircraft: "Cleared for take-off, G-ABCD"

You're correct that there's no "clearance" to taxi but I think that's the
same everywhere.

So there's no problem with reading an IFR clearance, since there's no taboo
on "clearance" or "cleared".

The issue identified at Tenerife was, to borrow Ron's transcript, not the
CLEARED, but the TAKE-OFF

KLM: KLM 4805 is now ready for takeoff, and we're waiting for our ATC
clearance.
TWR: KLM 8705 you are cleared to the papa beacon climb to and maintain
flight level 290 right turn after TAKE-OFF proceed with heading 040
until
intercepting the 305 radial from Las Palmas VOR.
KLM: Roger sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level 90, right
turn out
050 until intercepting the 305 and we're now at TAKE-OFF .
TWR: OK. Stand by for take-off, I will call you.
PAN: We're still taxiing down the runway, Clipper 1736

As well as the potential confusion over the tower's use of "take-off" in the
clearance (which was at the time perfectly acceptable practice, BTW), the
second use of the words by the crew would or should ring alarm bells in a UK
ATCO's mind as to whether the aircraft had properly understood that they
were to hold. Evidently if raised some doubt in the tower controller's
mind, but not enough for him to demand an acknowledgement.

Julian Scarfe

[Peter]

Matthew Waugh wrote:
> "Don Tuite" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I dunno. A jetport in the Azores probably *is* an unusual place. I
>>wonder what the daily traffic volume is.
>
>
> To go back to the original crash - at the time the airport was littered with
> large airliners because the weather in Europe was horrible and they'd all
> landed there to wait it out. So they were back-taxing aircraft on the active
> runway because the taxi-ways were full.
>
> It was an unusual day at that airport, it became infamous!

Don't know about the weather in Europe, but it was certainly bad in the
Canaries with fog and low-lying clouds creating very poor visibility. The
intended airport in the islands for both flights was at Las Palmas, but
that airport had closed due to a bomb explosion at the terminal and claims
of a second bomb. As a result the involved planes and others were diverted
to Tenerife resulting in very crowded conditions at the airport there -
and, as stated, using the active runway for back-taxiing. The accident
occurred after Las Palmas reopened and the planes diverted to Tenerife were
being sent back there. Definitely an unusual day.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suppose, but what right-minded controller would plant a 737 on a runway
to
> wait for an IFR clearance? In my mind, an ex-controller, or a =very=
unusual
> circumstance.
>

It was a 747. The controller didn't plant him on the runway so that he
could wait for an IFR clearance, he was taxiing for takeoff while the
clearance was on request. Nor did he wait on the runway for his IFR
clearance, he was issued the IFR clearance and still had to wait for the
runway to become available for his takeoff.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Nor did he wait on the runway for his IFR
clearance, he was issued the IFR clearance and still had to wait for the
runway to become available for his takeoff.
<<

Ok, I thought he got his IFR clearance while in position... implying he was on
the runway without an IFR clearance at least for some point.

Jos

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, I thought he got his IFR clearance while in position... implying he
was on
> the runway without an IFR clearance at least for some point.
>

He did get his IFR clearance while on the runway, but that did not delay his
departure. Being on the runway without an IFR clearance is not a problem.

[Teacherjh]

>> Being on the runway without an IFR clearance is not a problem.

.... unless you can't take off without an IFR clearance, and there's incoming.
But I suppose the controller would take care of that when it happened.

It just seems that the end of the runway is a bad place to be unless you're
ready to go.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> ... unless you can't take off without an IFR clearance, and there's
incoming.
> But I suppose the controller would take care of that when it happened.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, sure. Who wants to be the hundredth?

> It just seems that the end of the runway is a bad place to be unless
you're
> ready to go.

It is. And no controller can make you sit there. They don't fly the plane.
You do.

Pete

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 at 21:21:49 in message
>, Teacherjh
> wrote:

>What were they doing in position for takeoff without an IFR clearance in
>hand???

Best that you read an extensive report on this terrible accident. For
easy reading and lots of detail I would commend:

Air Disaster Volume 1 by Macarthur Job Page 164 Chapter 18
Title of chapter "Did he not clear the runway - the Pan American?"

That took place March 27, 1977

ISBN 1 875671 11 0
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 at 12:17:22 in message
>, Matthew Waugh
> wrote:

>To go back to the original crash - at the time the airport was littered with
>large airliners because the weather in Europe was horrible and they'd all
>landed there to wait it out. So they were back-taxing aircraft on the active
>runway because the taxi-ways were full.

Weather varies considerably across Europe so it is rare for the weather
in Europe to be horrible everywhere. The weather was a vital, but local
factor in that accident. Whether the Canary islands are even part of
Europe is debatable. Unusually there was cloud and fog in Tenerife.

Leaving your generalisation aside the cause of all the congestion was
that a small bomb had gone off in the passenger terminal at Las Palmas.
There had been a 15 minute warning of that but then there was then a
second warning about another bomb. There was little option but to close
the airport while a big search was conducted. The many flights
approaching at that time had to be diverted and they were sent to Los
Rodeos, the other Canary Islands international airport, 50 miles away on
the island of Tenerife. It had a single runway and had neither taxi ways
nor parking to handle double its normal daily traffic. The apron was
fully occupied when the KLM 747 arrived. Then the Pan Am 747 arrived.

That is just the starting point for what happened. I am not going
through all the rest of it - it is well documented but please get the
basics roughly correct.
--
David CL Francis

[Julian Scarfe]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> Being on the runway without an IFR clearance is not a problem.
>
> ... unless you can't take off without an IFR clearance, and there's
incoming.
> But I suppose the controller would take care of that when it happened.
>
> It just seems that the end of the runway is a bad place to be unless
you're
> ready to go.

Not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this. In Europe at least,
the rate-limiting step is often coordination with the facility that will
control after departure. The clearance is not issued until that has been
done, and the window that that facility wants to open up is usually quite
short. Hence it's not unusual at a quiet controlled airport to be given the
IFR clearance while lined up on the runway, and a take-off clearance
immediately afterwards. If the clearance were given at the hold, it could
take minutes to backtrack the runway and get airborne -- it's not unusual to
get such a clearance a couple of minutes before the end of a flow management
slot.

Julian Scarfe

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> Not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this.

Well, for one, because nearly all fatal collisions between transport
aircraft occurred on a runway.

> [...] Hence it's not unusual at a quiet controlled airport to be given
the
> IFR clearance while lined up on the runway, and a take-off clearance
> immediately afterwards.

I don't think anyone stipulated the "quiet controlled airport".
"Controlled" is implied, of course. But this "quiet" was never stated. In
the US, "quiet controlled airport" is either an oxymoron by definition, or a
relative term applicable to airports where there's still a fair amount of
traffic.

> If the clearance were given at the hold, it could
> take minutes to backtrack the runway and get airborne -- it's not unusual
to
> get such a clearance a couple of minutes before the end of a flow
management
> slot.

Minutes? I've never seen an airport where an airplane would take more than
ten or fifteen seconds to get lined up and take off. Not saying they don't
exist, of course, but surely it makes more sense to think about the typical
case here when talking about general procedures.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

> "Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> Well, for one, because nearly all fatal collisions between transport
> aircraft occurred on a runway.

That's fair enough. I think there have been at least two landing vs
position-and-hold collisions, though I don't think either of them involved
waiting for an IFR clearance -- but I take the point.

> > [...] Hence it's not unusual at a quiet controlled airport to be given
> the
> > IFR clearance while lined up on the runway, and a take-off clearance
> > immediately afterwards.
>
> I don't think anyone stipulated the "quiet controlled airport".
> "Controlled" is implied, of course. But this "quiet" was never stated.
In
> the US, "quiet controlled airport" is either an oxymoron by definition, or
a
> relative term applicable to airports where there's still a fair amount of
> traffic.

Well Tenerife was pretty quiet that day until the collision!

It's difficult to tell as I have limited experience of flying in the US, but
it didn't seem unusual for minutes to go by without the runway being in use.
My last flight in the US involved an unscheduled stop at PAE after a door
came open in flight. We landed on the runway and instead of asking us to
vacate we got to stop, fix the door and then backtrack on the runway to the
end. Does Paine Field count as quiet?

> > If the clearance were given at the hold, it could
> > take minutes to backtrack the runway and get airborne -- it's not
unusual
> > to get such a clearance a couple of minutes before the end of a flow
> > management slot.
>
> Minutes? I've never seen an airport where an airplane would take more
than
> ten or fifteen seconds to get lined up and take off. Not saying they
don't
> exist, of course, but surely it makes more sense to think about the
typical
> case here when talking about general procedures.

Again I can only think of specific cases -- I guess concrete is cheaper in
the US. :-) At my home base of Cambridge in the UK, the last paved taxiway
to/from the apron is about 2/3 of the way down the 6500 ft runway 05. Thus
the 747s that come in for maintenance end up taxying more than 4000 ft on
the runway, and they don't like doing that very quickly. It's more common
than not for them (and the rest of us for that matter) to get a clearance
while backtracking.

Julian Scarfe

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> It's difficult to tell as I have limited experience of flying in the US,
but
> it didn't seem unusual for minutes to go by without the runway being in
use.
> My last flight in the US involved an unscheduled stop at PAE after a door
> came open in flight. We landed on the runway and instead of asking us to
> vacate we got to stop, fix the door and then backtrack on the runway to
the
> end. Does Paine Field count as quiet?

I'm based at Paine. It does have its quiet moments, but I wouldn't want to
sit on the runway for any extended period of time, not as a general rule.
You don't say what kind of airplane you were in, or what the nature of the
flight was. I assume that since you say you backtracked on the runway, the
airplane must've been pretty small. I personally would not have accepted
the offer to backtrack on the runway, not at Paine. Your experience is a
good example of a scenario that may or may not be entirely safe.

(That said, I'm a bit surprised you needed to backtrack on the runway
anyway. Assuming you landed on the long runway, there should have been
plenty of room for a stop-and-go. If you landed on one of the shorter ones,
the taxiway exits are close enough together that it's hardly a more
significant effort to taxi back on an actual taxiway. There's no
operational reason that justifies the reduction in safety to backtaxi on any
runway at Paine).

The bottom line IMHO is that as the pilot, it's hard to know for sure
whether current circumstances allow one to safely remain on the runway for
extended periods of time, and controllers are falliable. Aviation safety is
predicated on the idea that one makes every effort to avoid potentially
serious situations, even if those situations rarely result in a problem.

In any case, I would certainly never say that one should never wait on the
runway, but one ought to only do so when one has VERY good information with
respect to what aircraft are actually in the area, a reasonable idea of how
long the wait will be, and a good escape plan in case the wait goes longer
than expected. And one should do it only when there's a really good reason
for doing so (i.e. some benefit that justifies the risk).

Furthermore (and more relevant to your original comment) I can *easily* see
why there's such a strong aversion to this sort of thing. It's rarely an
operational necessity, and when it is, it should still only be undertaken
with the same (presumably high degree of) caution used in other areas of
flight. The aversion is quite understandable IMHO.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I'm based at Paine. It does have its quiet moments, but I wouldn't want
to
> sit on the runway for any extended period of time, not as a general rule.
> You don't say what kind of airplane you were in, or what the nature of the
> flight was. I assume that since you say you backtracked on the runway,
the
> airplane must've been pretty small. I personally would not have accepted
> the offer to backtrack on the runway, not at Paine. Your experience is a
> good example of a scenario that may or may not be entirely safe.
>
> (That said, I'm a bit surprised you needed to backtrack on the runway
> anyway. Assuming you landed on the long runway, there should have been
> plenty of room for a stop-and-go. If you landed on one of the shorter
ones,
> the taxiway exits are close enough together that it's hardly a more
> significant effort to taxi back on an actual taxiway. There's no
> operational reason that justifies the reduction in safety to backtaxi on
any
> runway at Paine).

It was a Seneca II. A collision would have required:

a) that a landing aircraft failed to obtain a clearance to land, and
b) that we failed to see a landing aircraft while backtracking, and
c) that the controller failed to see a landing aircraft, and
d) that the landing aircraft failed to see us, and
e) that we tried to occupy the same part of a 9000 x 150 ft runway at the
same time.

It seemed like a good bet.

> The bottom line IMHO is that as the pilot, it's hard to know for sure
> whether current circumstances allow one to safely remain on the runway for
> extended periods of time, and controllers are falliable. Aviation safety
is
> predicated on the idea that one makes every effort to avoid potentially
> serious situations, even if those situations rarely result in a problem.

Given the uncertainties in estimating risks, I usually hesitate to argue
relative safety. But I have to say that if you think it's safer to give up
3000 ft of a 9000 ft runway in a light twin than to backtrack on a runway
with the controller's authorization, you either have negligible faith in the
abilities of ATC or remarkable faith in the workmanship of TCM.

> In any case, I would certainly never say that one should never wait on the
> runway, but one ought to only do so when one has VERY good information
with
> respect to what aircraft are actually in the area, a reasonable idea of
how
> long the wait will be, and a good escape plan in case the wait goes longer
> than expected. And one should do it only when there's a really good
reason
> for doing so (i.e. some benefit that justifies the risk).
>
> Furthermore (and more relevant to your original comment) I can *easily*
see
> why there's such a strong aversion to this sort of thing. It's rarely an
> operational necessity, and when it is, it should still only be undertaken
> with the same (presumably high degree of) caution used in other areas of
> flight. The aversion is quite understandable IMHO.

Isn't the next logical step to outlaw position-and-hold? Why would you ever
occupy the runway without a clearance to take off?

Julian Scarfe

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> It was a Seneca II. A collision would have required:
>
> a) that a landing aircraft failed to obtain a clearance to land, and

No. That's the whole point. A controller may well clear an airplane to
land right on top of you. You just don't know.

> b) that we failed to see a landing aircraft while backtracking, and

Not hard if the airplane is behind you. Bi-directional operations at Paine
are not uncommon.

> c) that the controller failed to see a landing aircraft, and

Not hard if the controller is distracted dealing with an issue elsewhere at
the airport. That said, the controller needs only to fail to see ONE of the
aircraft, either the landing one or the sitting-duck one.

> d) that the landing aircraft failed to see us, and

Oddly enough, runway collisions happen. Obviously pilots of other aircraft
DO in fact find themselves not being able to see other airplanes on the
runway in time to avoid them.

> e) that we tried to occupy the same part of a 9000 x 150 ft runway at the
> same time.

Funny thing about coincidences. They do exist.

A common generalization made about accidents is that they usually involve a
relatively long chain of events or decisions. Alter just one, and the
entire accident never happened. Even if your chain of events is as unlikely
to occur as you think it is (and I don't agree that it is), the point is
that the chain of events CAN certainly occur.

The one element you have control over is whether you actually get onto the
runway and wait for an extended period of time. Why miss that great
opportunity to break the chain of events? It's the only one you have.

> It seemed like a good bet.

I'm sure the sequence of events leading up to a great many accidents
(aircraft and otherwise) seemed like a good bet at the time.

> Given the uncertainties in estimating risks, I usually hesitate to argue
> relative safety. But I have to say that if you think it's safer to give
up
> 3000 ft of a 9000 ft runway in a light twin than to backtrack on a runway
> with the controller's authorization, you either have negligible faith in
the
> abilities of ATC or remarkable faith in the workmanship of TCM.

With respect to my opinion of ATC: I simply don't see the point in trusting
them when there's no real need to. I have faith in their abilities, but I
prefer to deal in things that I *know* for sure rather than trusting someone
else to do them. Too often, a person I trust lets me down. Rarely, my life
is at stake, but that is the case here.

As far as giving up 3000' of a 9000' runway: a) that's not the only
alternative to backtaxiing -- at Paine, all you have to do is get off the
runway and taxi back on the parallel taxiway; and b) frankly, AFAIK 6000' is
*plenty* of runway from which to launch a Seneca II.

I would pick option a) -- using the taxiway -- but if you are really trying
to save time and are willing to reduce your safety factor to do it, the
stop-and-go is the right solution. Backtaxiing on the runway saves you
negligible time compared to taxiing back on the taxiway, while the
stop-and-go saves you serious time.

> Isn't the next logical step to outlaw position-and-hold? Why would you
ever
> occupy the runway without a clearance to take off?

As I mentioned, there are times in which it's an appropriate solution. At
Paine, the most common reason that clearance is used is when the controller
is trying to get as many departures out before the next landing. Allowing
an airplane to proceed onto the runway as the preceding airplane is taking
off helps this goal. Because the takeoff is expected immediately and the
"position and holding" aircraft can see where the landing traffic is, they
can evaluate the reasonableness of the clearance. Things are happening fast
enough that ANY delay is cause for concern and the pilot can get back off
the runway.

The problem that started this discussion is one of the length of time an
aircraft is expected to sit on a runway. Five, ten, maybe even fifteen
seconds to wait for an IFR clearance seems perfectly reasonable. But
several minutes? No, not to me it doesn't.

Like I said, I'm not going to take so extreme a position as to claim that
position-and-hold is NEVER appropriate. But I certainly feel that its use
should be restricted to very narrow situations where the hazard has been
reduced to the greatest extent possible, and especially to where the pilot
doing the position and hold has first-hand knowledge regarding the safety of
the operation (as opposed to trusting ATC to take care of everything).

Finally, let me remind you that the comment to which I took issue was the
"not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this." The bottom line here
is that the reason for the aversion is clear. There are definitely safety
issues, regardless of how significant you think they are. You might as well
say "not sure why there's such a strong aversion to spiders". After all,
all but a handful of spiders are safe. Yet, no one should be surprised when
they come across another person who has a strong aversion to spiders. It's
only natural. Your apparent argument to the contrary is a bit puzzling to
me, to say the least.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

I think we've passed the 80:20 point on this debate so I'll let it rest.
Needless to say I don't agree with all you say, but you've raised some point
of which awareness can only be a positive thing for me and other readers.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> The problem that started this discussion is one of the length of time an
> aircraft is expected to sit on a runway. Five, ten, maybe even fifteen
> seconds to wait for an IFR clearance seems perfectly reasonable. But
> several minutes? No, not to me it doesn't.

No that wasn't what I intended, though I can see why you interpreted it that
way. I said it could be minutes between an aircraft receiving an IFR
clearance at the hold and being in a position to take off. In most cases I
would expect a clearance to come during the backtrack and to be available on
turnaround, within seconds. I don't think ATC would leave an aircraft
sitting there for minutes unless they anticipated a clearance from another
facility that didn't come.

> Finally, let me remind you that the comment to which I took issue was the
> "not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this." The bottom line
here
> is that the reason for the aversion is clear. There are definitely safety
> issues, regardless of how significant you think they are. You might as
well
> say "not sure why there's such a strong aversion to spiders". After all,
> all but a handful of spiders are safe. Yet, no one should be surprised
when
> they come across another person who has a strong aversion to spiders.
It's
> only natural. Your apparent argument to the contrary is a bit puzzling to
> me, to say the least.

I think you do yourself no favours with that argument as fear of spiders
tends to be an irrational fear. You've eloquently outlined the hazards that
give rise to your aversion to sitting on the runway for longer than
necessary. They are quite rational, even if we disagree about the magnitude
of the risk.

Julian Scarfe

[Julian Scarfe]

I will just add one point that just occurred to me.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> > a) that a landing aircraft failed to obtain a clearance to land, and
>
> No. That's the whole point. A controller may well clear an airplane to
> land right on top of you. You just don't know.

In the US ATC is permitted to anticipate separation in landing clearances:
"3-10-6. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Landing clearance to succeeding aircraft in a landing sequence need not be
withheld if you observe the positions of the aircraft and determine that
prescribed runway separation will exist when the aircraft cross the landing
threshold. Issue traffic information to the succeeding aircraft if not
previously reported and appropriate traffic holding in position or departing
prior to their arrival."

"American Two Forty-Five cleared to land, following United Boeing
Seven-Thirty-Seven two mile final, traffic will depart prior to your
arrival."

In the UK (and I think in the rest of Europe), such clearances are not
permitted. A landing clearance indicates that the runway *is* clear and
will remain clear of other traffic until the aircraft has vacated it.



Thus the level of confusion/incompetence/distraction required for the
controller to "clear an airplane to land right on top of you" would be very
much greater in the UK. I can imagine a scenario under the US regime where,
if the departing traffic were waiting for an IFR clearance and it were slow
to arrive, a controller might fail to resolve the unanticipated conflict.
In the UK it would require a major mistake as to fact, not just a mistaken
expectation.

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> I think you do yourself no favours with that argument as fear of spiders
> tends to be an irrational fear.

I never said the fear of spiders was entirely rational. My point is that
the fear is understandable. Likewise, whether you believe the fear of
position-and-hold is rational or not, it is certainly understandable.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Thus the level of confusion/incompetence/distraction required for the
> controller to "clear an airplane to land right on top of you" would be
very
> much greater in the UK. [...]
> In the UK it would require a major mistake as to fact, not just a mistaken
> expectation.

Yes, there is definitely an operational difference between landings
clearances in the US and in the UK, just as there are differences in what
qualifies an airport for a tower, and the nature of taxiways at various
airports. I do recognize that flying the US is often very different from
flying elsewhere, and my comments are specifically with respect to my own
experiences in the US. They may or may not be applicable elsewhere.

Pete

[Paul Sengupta]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John Harper" > wrote in message
> news:1069786900.839440@sj-nntpcache-3...
> >
> > Actually there are some changes as a result of Tenerife. For
> > example in the UK the word "cleared" is used only in "cleared
> > for takeoff". Other uses (e.g. for taxi) use some other word,
> > "permission" iirc.
> >
>
> What is used for IFR clearances?

"Your clearance is...x to y to z via w (or whatever)"

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Yes, they used the C-word in delivering the IFR clearance. How would they
> issue an IFR clearance without using it? But Paul Sengupta wrote, "It may
> be the case that the Dutch captain heard the words "cleared" and
"take-off"
> and thought that was his cue to go." ATC said "OK. Stand by for
take-off,
> I will call you." No C-word.

It was the use of "take-off" that became the big issue.

What the KLM captain thought, we don't know.

Paul

[Julian Scarfe]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > What is used for IFR clearances?

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Your clearance is...x to y to z via w (or whatever)"

I think that's likely to confuse the issue, Paul.

Here's the example from CAP 413 the Radiotelephony Manual, which is typical
of IFR clearances in my experience.

"Fastair 345 is cleared to Kennington via A1 at FL 60, request level change
enroute, squawk 5501"

There's no significant difference in phraseology.

Julian Scarfe