First NASA form filed

[Paul Folbrecht]

And I sincerely hope it will be the last.

I landed at LSE (LaCrosse) on the way home from the twin cities last
week. I landed on 18 and asked for a progressive taxi to the FBO,
having never been there before. Controller told me to turn left on
taxiway bravo down to the construction cones at the end.

As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
pretty flagrant violation.

After a split second of uncertainty I told tower I was holding at 21.
She immediately told me to continue past in the chipper tone she had
been using all along. Note that nobody had landed on or departed 21
during the entire time of my taxi so there was no loss of separation.

I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
tower or let you know they're making a report, though.

Though the logical side of my brain tells me that the chances of some
enforcement action here would be slim, of course I filed the form
regardless. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
matter (the chance of some investigation).

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS had
> called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was over the
> hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line. I think
> it's important to note that the controller had not told me to hold short
> of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a pretty flagrant
> violation.
>

Some people may not like me saying this but I do not agree with the rule
that you are cleared to cross all runways on your way to where you are
taxiing. I think the default should be that they must explicitly tell you
you are cleared to cross ANY runway and when you don't hear that you must
stop and ask (or call and ask as you are approaching it).

I am frequently given instructions which make me cross an active runway
without explicitly saying so and I always ask before doing so and STILL look
out for traffic on it before crossing.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
> though no explicit instruction had been given ...

You are incorrect.

> I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
> matter (the chance of some investigation).

After some initial puzzlement (e.g. "Umm, what's the problem being
reported here?"), I would hope they'd realize you need some remedial
training on airport operations.
In the meantime, have a look at AIM 4-3-18.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>
>>I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
>>though no explicit instruction had been given ...
>
>
> You are incorrect.

Good news to me if that's correct. However, a CFI I know (not my CFI)
and a controller at another class D airport disagree with you. I should
have mentioned this - this is why I decided to file the form.

>>I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
>>matter (the chance of some investigation).
>
>
> After some initial puzzlement (e.g. "Umm, what's the problem being
> reported here?"), I would hope they'd realize you need some remedial
> training on airport operations.

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's painfully obvious that a taxi clearance
implicitly grants permission to grant *active* runways, and I'm
hopelessly clueless.

> In the meantime, have a look at AIM 4-3-18.

I'll certainly do that.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Ok, well, you are quite right - AIM 4-3-18.6 is entirely clear on this
scenario and I had no obligation to hold.

Since this does seem to be a fairly common point of confusion, though,
I'd suggest that your condescending comment wasn't exactly warranted.

Good think the mailman hadn't come yet. :-) Now how do you retract a
post from Usenet?

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>
>>I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
>>though no explicit instruction had been given ...
>
>
> You are incorrect.
>
>
>>I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
>>matter (the chance of some investigation).
>
>
> After some initial puzzlement (e.g. "Umm, what's the problem being
> reported here?"), I would hope they'd realize you need some remedial
> training on airport operations.
> In the meantime, have a look at AIM 4-3-18.
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 15:04:52 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
>though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
>of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
>circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
>me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
>didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
>the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
>ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
>tower or let you know they're making a report, though.

You need to review the AIM regarding taxi clearances. In particular:

===========================================
4-3-18. Taxiing
6. In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any
point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross ALL
runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.
============================================
(emphasis mine)

While some may argue that clearance to cross each and every runway should
be given by ATC, at least in the US, that is NOT the case.


--ron

[Bob Gardner]

At the "Communicating for Safety" conference put on by NATCA in Dallas, I
got the impression that there is a lot of controller sentiment in favor of
changing the AIM's laissez faire approach to crossing runways enroute to the
departure runway.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> And I sincerely hope it will be the last.
>
> I landed at LSE (LaCrosse) on the way home from the twin cities last
> week. I landed on 18 and asked for a progressive taxi to the FBO,
> having never been there before. Controller told me to turn left on
> taxiway bravo down to the construction cones at the end.
>
> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
> had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
> over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
> I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
> hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
> pretty flagrant violation.
>
> After a split second of uncertainty I told tower I was holding at 21.
> She immediately told me to continue past in the chipper tone she had
> been using all along. Note that nobody had landed on or departed 21
> during the entire time of my taxi so there was no loss of separation.
>
> I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
> though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
> of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
> circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
> me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
> didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
> the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
> ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
> tower or let you know they're making a report, though.
>
> Though the logical side of my brain tells me that the chances of some
> enforcement action here would be slim, of course I filed the form
> regardless. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
> matter (the chance of some investigation).
>

[Icebound]

Speaking of which, I have been checking the accessible database at
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov/servlet/page?_pageid=72,78&_dad=nasdac&_schema=NASDAC
and there hasn't been any new reports in there for months.

[lardsoup]

When ever I cross a runway I always stop a look both ways then self announce
that I am crossing the runway (just like at an uncontrolled airport) just in
case the controller made a mistake or forgot about me. Usually I get an
"OK' reply.

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> And I sincerely hope it will be the last.
>
> I landed at LSE (LaCrosse) on the way home from the twin cities last
> week. I landed on 18 and asked for a progressive taxi to the FBO,
> having never been there before. Controller told me to turn left on
> taxiway bravo down to the construction cones at the end.
>
> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
> had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
> over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
> I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
> hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
> pretty flagrant violation.
>
> After a split second of uncertainty I told tower I was holding at 21.
> She immediately told me to continue past in the chipper tone she had
> been using all along. Note that nobody had landed on or departed 21
> during the entire time of my taxi so there was no loss of separation.
>
> I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
> though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
> of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
> circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
> me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
> didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
> the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
> ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
> tower or let you know they're making a report, though.
>
> Though the logical side of my brain tells me that the chances of some
> enforcement action here would be slim, of course I filed the form
> regardless. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
> matter (the chance of some investigation).
>

[Brien K. Meehan]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> I'd suggest that your condescending comment wasn't exactly warranted.

I'm sorry if it sounded that way, but I wasn't being condescending.

Airport operations and following taxi instructions are basic knowledge
required to fly safely. You might think it's safe to hold short of a
runway "just in case," but you could have caused a taxiway incursion
by stopping suddenly.

There's nothing wrong with remedial training. If you don't know this
area, you need to find out. If you learned it incorrectly, you need to
repair that. Clarify this area of knowledge with your instructor and
that tower controller (it's possible you misunderstood each other while
discussing this). If he doesn't know it correctly, bring him along to
someone who does, or at least show him the book.

[Paul Folbrecht]

> I'm sorry if it sounded that way, but I wasn't being condescending.

Well, ah, certainly no hard feelings (I'm just not like that), but
'remedial' does have a negative connotion to many, though it's true that
there's really nothing so about the dictionary definition of the word.

> Airport operations and following taxi instructions are basic knowledge
> required to fly safely. You might think it's safe to hold short of a
> runway "just in case," but you could have caused a taxiway incursion
> by stopping suddenly.

Well, yes, it's most certainly true that the sudden stop was not the
best way to have handled the situation! That said, I'd hope nobody is
on my tail so closely that that's going to cause a collision hazard.

The specific scenario I raised is, unfortunately, apparantly an area of
unclarity for a good number of active pilots. I fly out of D and C
airports quite regularly, and, for one thing, any other time this
situation has arisen I had in fact been explicitly told by the
controller to cross runway x when runway x was active. Seems that most
or many of them like to keep these things crystal clear despite what the
regs say. I cannot recall a single other time when I was given a taxi
instruction that implied crossing an active (but not the destination)
runway without a specific instruction to do so. This may happen at a
good many airports regularly, but I don't think it's the norm at some at
least.

> that tower controller (it's possible you misunderstood each other while
> discussing this). If he doesn't know it correctly, bring him along to
> someone who does, or at least show him the book.

I didn't talk to him, the CFI I mentioned did, and I'm certain that said
CFI had complete understanding of what had occurred.

[Blanche]

This reminds me of rules of water -- an unpowered boat has
right of way over powered. In other words, a sailboat has
RoW crossing in front of a large oil tanker.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. I
agree with the original poster. Doesn't hurt to stop at
the intersection and check -- just in case. There have been
reported incidents and accidents where the tower forgot
about the little aircraft taxiing around with jets coming
in.

No one is ever going to fault you for being careful. Tower/ground
may be annoyed at delays in a busy airport, but being safe
is better.

[Morgans]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote

================
> 4-3-18. Taxiing
> 6. In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any
> point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross ALL
> runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.
> ============================================
> (emphasis mine)
>
> While some may argue that clearance to cross each and every runway should
> be given by ATC, at least in the US, that is NOT the case.
>
>
> --ron

A trick here is, if you are given clearance to taxi to 31, but have to get
to the opposite side of 31 to get to the taxiway that will take you to the
departure end of 31, you may cross any other runways, but may not cross 31
without clearance.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:48:26 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>A trick here is, if you are given clearance to taxi to 31, but have to get
>to the opposite side of 31 to get to the taxiway that will take you to the
>departure end of 31, you may cross any other runways, but may not cross 31
>without clearance.

That would only be the case if Rwy 31 were your assigned takeoff runway.
The paragraph I quoted (paragraph 6) had to do with clearances to OTHER
than an assigned take-off runway.

For clearances to an assigned takeoff runway see paragraph 5 which clearly
states the point you are making with regard to taxiing to an assigned
takeoff runway:

=====================================
AIM 4-3-18. Taxiing

5. When ATC clears an aircraft to "taxi to" an assigned takeoff runway, the
absence of holding instructions authorizes the aircraft to "cross" all
runways which the taxi route intersects except the assigned takeoff runway.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTHORIZATION TO "TAXI ONTO" OR "CROSS" THE ASSIGNED
TAKEOFF RUNWAY AT ANY POINT.
====================================

(emphasis mine)
--ron

[TJ Girl]

You've gotten many good answers, but I wanted to reply to one comment
you made in passing where I think you have a serious misconception.
which many people share with you...


Paul Folbrecht > wrote in message >...
> And I sincerely hope it will be the last.

I sincerely hope it is NOT the last.
NASA forms are designed to report safety issues, not just as a "get
out of jail free card." The get out of jail free aspect is only used
as an added incentive to take the time to fill out the form.
Safety issues may come from something you did wrong, or they may come
from something somebody else did wrong, or they may come from
something where everything was done according to the book, yet an
unsafe condition resulted.
A NASA form should be filed for any of these situations.
Please use them to help others.

[StellaStar]

TJgirl sez:
>NASA forms are designed to report safety issues, not just as a "get
>out of jail free card."

There's a lot I didn't know about them, and we discussed them today at my BFR.
For one thing, I didn't know where you could get the form itself...or that
there's one among the back pages of the FAR/AIM! (Hey, I thought it was just
all ads for x-ray glasses and more comics back there)

Now I'm sorry I just threw away an old book. But the form's also online. I'm
going to study it, and while I hope I never have to use one, it's nice to know
it can be for something non-serious and will show intent to be a good pilot in
the case that something embarassing (or worse) happens...

[Morgans]

Re- read my post. That is what I said.
--
Jim in NC

[BTIZ]

I've always understood that when directed to taxi TO a runway, you are
granted permission to cross any other runway except the one you are taxing
TO... not when you are taxing from a runway to the RAMP.

BT

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> And I sincerely hope it will be the last.
>
> I landed at LSE (LaCrosse) on the way home from the twin cities last
> week. I landed on 18 and asked for a progressive taxi to the FBO,
> having never been there before. Controller told me to turn left on
> taxiway bravo down to the construction cones at the end.
>
> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
> had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
> over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
> I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
> hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
> pretty flagrant violation.
>
> After a split second of uncertainty I told tower I was holding at 21.
> She immediately told me to continue past in the chipper tone she had
> been using all along. Note that nobody had landed on or departed 21
> during the entire time of my taxi so there was no loss of separation.
>
> I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
> though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
> of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
> circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
> me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
> didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
> the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
> ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
> tower or let you know they're making a report, though.
>
> Though the logical side of my brain tells me that the chances of some
> enforcement action here would be slim, of course I filed the form
> regardless. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
> matter (the chance of some investigation).
>

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
had
> > called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was over
the
> > hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line. I think
> > it's important to note that the controller had not told me to hold short
> > of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a pretty
flagrant
> > violation.
> >
>
> Some people may not like me saying this but I do not agree with the rule
> that you are cleared to cross all runways on your way to where you are
> taxiing. I think the default should be that they must explicitly tell you
> you are cleared to cross ANY runway and when you don't hear that you must
> stop and ask (or call and ask as you are approaching it).
>
> I am frequently given instructions which make me cross an active runway
> without explicitly saying so and I always ask before doing so and STILL
look
> out for traffic on it before crossing.

Nevertheless, this is not what the FARs say. However, the FARs do not
prevent you from taking extra precautions such as these if you feel they are
justified.

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> At the "Communicating for Safety" conference put on by NATCA in Dallas, I
> got the impression that there is a lot of controller sentiment in favor of
> changing the AIM's laissez faire approach to crossing runways enroute to
the
> departure runway.

There is a significant amount of pilot sentiment in favor of changing the
default procedure as well. The current situation seems too open to
confusion.

[C J Campbell]

You were OK to cross the runway without stopping, but it is also OK to ask
the controller if the coast is clear. Barring that, if there is more than
one pilot on board, it is good practice for each pilot to look to his side
and announce "clear left" or "clear right" before crossing either a runway
or a taxiway.

Many pilots and controllers would like to see the rules changed but the
downside is that requiring each aircraft to call the tower or announce on
CTAF before crossing every runway can increase the radio chatter
considerably. There are pilots here that go ballistic just because some
people use a couple extra words such as "with you." They are likely to be
intolerant of the increased radio traffic that would be generated by a
change of the rules for taxiing.

[CB]

Paul,

Try out this AOPA Safety Foundation program it will answer all your
questions.
http://flash.aopa.org/asf/runwaySafety/

cb

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
>> had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
>> over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
>> I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
>> hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
>> pretty flagrant violation.
>>
>
> Some people may not like me saying this but I do not agree with the rule
> that you are cleared to cross all runways on your way to where you are
> taxiing. I think the default should be that they must explicitly tell you
> you are cleared to cross ANY runway and when you don't hear that you must
> stop and ask (or call and ask as you are approaching it).
>
> I am frequently given instructions which make me cross an active runway
> without explicitly saying so and I always ask before doing so and STILL
> look out for traffic on it before crossing.
>
>
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:39:12 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>Re- read my post. That is what I said.


The post of yours to which I was responding was where you stated:

>A trick here is, if you are given clearance to taxi to 31, but have to get
>to the opposite side of 31 to get to the taxiway that will take you to the
>departure end of 31, you may cross any other runways, but may not cross 31
>without clearance.

I did not see in that post any indication that 31 was the "assigned
take-off runway".


--ron

[Paul Folbrecht]

BT,

Perhaps we could do our remedial training together?! :-)


BTIZ wrote:

> I've always understood that when directed to taxi TO a runway, you are
> granted permission to cross any other runway except the one you are taxing
> TO... not when you are taxing from a runway to the RAMP.
>
> BT

[Morgans]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote
>
> >A trick here is, if you are given clearance to taxi to 31, but have to
get
> >to the opposite side of 31 to get to the taxiway that will take you to
the
> >departure end of 31, you may cross any other runways, but may not cross
31
> >without clearance.
>
> I did not see in that post any indication that 31 was the "assigned
> take-off runway".
>
>
> --ron

You are technically right, but picking at nits. Why else, in context with
the other posts subjects, would anyone not see that when I said, "given
clearance to taxi to 31", it was not the assigned runway.

Geez. You may now have the last word.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 13:42:26 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>You are technically right, but picking at nits. Why else, in context with
>the other posts subjects, would anyone not see that when I said, "given
>clearance to taxi to 31", it was not the assigned runway.
>
>Geez. You may now have the last word.

Since you insist :-)

Your response seemed to be to my posting, which was dealing, as was the
OP's original message, with taxiing to some place on the field other than
the assigned takeoff runway.


--ron

[Newps]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:


>
> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
> had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
> over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
> I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
> hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
> pretty flagrant violation.

Actually it wouldn't have been. In order for you to be on the runway,
from the controllers point of view, you have to cross the white edge
line on the runway. The hold short lines don't determine anything for a
controller.



And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
> me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
> didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
> the tower) or didn't care.

At my last facility, GFK, we didn't really know exactly where they were.
They serve no purpose to a controller.

[Newps]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> At the "Communicating for Safety" conference put on by NATCA in Dallas, I
> got the impression that there is a lot of controller sentiment in favor of
> changing the AIM's laissez faire approach to crossing runways enroute to the
> departure runway.

I have never heard that even brought up and would definitely not be in
favor of it.

[Paul Folbrecht]

I've heard both ways on this, and I do know for a fact that they matter
a lot to at least some controllers. Seems to me that they certainly
ought to - these are the official demarcations of the runway, right, and
*part* of the responsibility of controllers is to enforce the FARs (to
report violations of) at the facilities at which they work (not that I
want them to persecute pilots, of course).

> Actually it wouldn't have been. In order for you to be on the runway,
> from the controllers point of view, you have to cross the white edge
> line on the runway. The hold short lines don't determine anything for a
> controller.

[Newps]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
Seems to me that they certainly
> ought to - these are the official demarcations of the runway, right,

I am only interested in what happens within the white lines. You roll
over the hold short line by an airplane length it doesn't change what I
do one iota, as long as you remain outside the white lines.


and
> *part* of the responsibility of controllers is to enforce the FARs

Enforcement is FSDO's job. The only time ATC helps out is if a loss of
separation occurs or some other near dangerous thing happens. If
controllers called FSDO everytime you bend an FAR there would be tens of
thousands of cases each year.

[OtisWinslow]

I don't see that you technically did anything wrong. A clearance to taxi
to someplace on the airport would clear you across any runways except
if that clearance was to taxi TO a runway .. then you couldn't cross it
to get to the departure end without specific clearance. Normally they'll
tell you to hold short of a runway if they want you to. Such as "taxi to
the ramp .. hold short of runway 33". Now that said I never cross
a runway without a simple "confirm Nxxxxx is cleared across runway xx."
I've never had a controller get testy over it and would imagine they
appreciate the heads up with all the emphasis on avoiding runway incursions.


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
...
> And I sincerely hope it will be the last.
>
> I landed at LSE (LaCrosse) on the way home from the twin cities last
> week. I landed on 18 and asked for a progressive taxi to the FBO,
> having never been there before. Controller told me to turn left on
> taxiway bravo down to the construction cones at the end.
>
> As I was taxiing, I was about to cross 21, then recalled that the ATIS
> had called 18 and 21 as active. I stopped, hard, but my nosegear was
> over the hold line - in fact my mains were pretty much on the hold line.
> I think it's important to note that the controller had not told me to
> hold short of 21. If she had, then obviously this would have been a
> pretty flagrant violation.
>
> After a split second of uncertainty I told tower I was holding at 21.
> She immediately told me to continue past in the chipper tone she had
> been using all along. Note that nobody had landed on or departed 21
> during the entire time of my taxi so there was no loss of separation.
>
> I do believe that it was my responsibility to hold short of 21 even
> though no explicit instruction had been given, though I'm not 100% sure
> of that (but in the future I'll be damn sure to in similar
> circumstances!). And, unless the controller deliberately wanted to make
> me believe nothing was wrong for some reason, I believe she either
> didn't notice I was over the hold (this intersection is pretty close to
> the tower) or didn't care. Her voice indicated nothing out of the
> ordinary, as I said. I know they don't 'have to' ask you to call the
> tower or let you know they're making a report, though.
>
> Though the logical side of my brain tells me that the chances of some
> enforcement action here would be slim, of course I filed the form
> regardless. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on that
> matter (the chance of some investigation).
>

[David Brooks]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> At the "Communicating for Safety" conference put on by NATCA in Dallas, I
> got the impression that there is a lot of controller sentiment in favor of
> changing the AIM's laissez faire approach to crossing runways enroute to
the
> departure runway.

At least since I moved up there in 2000, the controllers at PAE have always
included "cross 11" when their taxi instructions require us to cross 11/29
on the way to an intersection takeoff (such as from most of the hangars to
A4 on 16R/34L).

However, now the thread has brought up the emphasis on "enroute to the
departure runway"... does that mean a taxi instruction from the same runway
intersection back to the same parking does *not* imply a clearance to cross
intervening runways? That hadn't occurred to me before, and seems to
compound the confusion.

-- David Brooks

[Paul Folbrecht]

I take it from your reply that you _are_ a controller - I did not
realize that. Obviously, you know better than I what controllers pay
attention to and what they don't.

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> Seems to me that they certainly
>
>> ought to - these are the official demarcations of the runway, right,
>
>
> I am only interested in what happens within the white lines. You roll
> over the hold short line by an airplane length it doesn't change what I
> do one iota, as long as you remain outside the white lines.
>
>
> and
>
>> *part* of the responsibility of controllers is to enforce the FARs
>
>
> Enforcement is FSDO's job. The only time ATC helps out is if a loss of
> separation occurs or some other near dangerous thing happens. If
> controllers called FSDO everytime you bend an FAR there would be tens of
> thousands of cases each year.
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:29:09 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>However, now the thread has brought up the emphasis on "enroute to the
>departure runway"... does that mean a taxi instruction from the same runway
>intersection back to the same parking does *not* imply a clearance to cross
>intervening runways? That hadn't occurred to me before, and seems to
>compound the confusion.

According to the AIM, it *DOES* imply a clearance to cross all intervening
runways:

"In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any
point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross ALL
runways that intersect the taxi route to that point." (emphasis mine).


--ron

[BllFs6]

>According to the AIM, it *DOES* imply a clearance to cross all intervening
>runways:
>
>"In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any
>point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross ALL
>runways that intersect the taxi route to that point." (emphasis mine).
>
>
>--ron
>

Well...I guess there COULD be the danger of MORE than one way to get from here
to there.....one the controller is thinking that is OKAY given the directions
they have given OTHER pilots....and the one the pilot takes not quite knowing
the big picture or where exactly they are going :)

take care

Blll

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 24 Aug 2004 00:34:16 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

>Well...I guess there COULD be the danger of MORE than one way to get from here
>to there.....one the controller is thinking that is OKAY given the directions
>they have given OTHER pilots....and the one the pilot takes not quite knowing
>the big picture or where exactly they are going :)

At airports where I have been, where that confusion might cause a problem,
I have always received direction from the controller. e.g. 'taxi to GA via
the Inner; Bravo; Golf.


--ron

[Paul Sengupta]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Aug 2004 00:34:16 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:
>
> >Well...I guess there COULD be the danger of MORE than one way to get from
here
> >to there.....one the controller is thinking that is OKAY given the
directions
> >they have given OTHER pilots....and the one the pilot takes not quite
knowing
> >the big picture or where exactly they are going :)
>
> At airports where I have been, where that confusion might cause a problem,
> I have always received direction from the controller. e.g. 'taxi to GA
via
> the Inner; Bravo; Golf.
>
>
> --ron

[Paul Sengupta]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Aug 2004 00:34:16 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:
>
> >Well...I guess there COULD be the danger of MORE than one way to get from
here
> >to there.....one the controller is thinking that is OKAY given the
directions
> >they have given OTHER pilots....and the one the pilot takes not quite
knowing
> >the big picture or where exactly they are going :)
>
> At airports where I have been, where that confusion might cause a problem,
> I have always received direction from the controller. e.g. 'taxi to GA
via
> the Inner; Bravo; Golf.

At one airport I was just told to taxi to a particular runway. I skipped
over a bit from the outer to the inner and continued that way. Ground
called up and asked where I was going. To avoid any embarassment I
asked for progressive taxi and was told "just keep going the way you're
going".

They just didn't expect me to taxi that way.

Paul

[David Brooks]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:29:09 -0700, "David Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >However, now the thread has brought up the emphasis on "enroute to the
> >departure runway"... does that mean a taxi instruction from the same
runway
> >intersection back to the same parking does *not* imply a clearance to
cross
> >intervening runways? That hadn't occurred to me before, and seems to
> >compound the confusion.
>
> According to the AIM, it *DOES* imply a clearance to cross all intervening
> runways:
>
> "In the absence of holding instructions, a clearance to "taxi to" any
> point other than an assigned takeoff runway is a clearance to cross ALL
> runways that intersect the taxi route to that point." (emphasis mine).

Ah, yes. Should have read on to paragraph 6. Back to your regular scheduled
misunderstandings.