"position & hold" going away

[Paul kgyy]

I saw an announcement on Aeronews this morning that the FAA is
proposing that the "taxi into position and hold" process used at
virtually all towered airports be discontinued.

This is really gonna work great at places like Newark, LaGuardia, and
OHare.

[Dave S]

Yea.. just think of all the near collisions it will avoid!

Dave

Paul kgyy wrote:

> I saw an announcement on Aeronews this morning that the FAA is
> proposing that the "taxi into position and hold" process used at
> virtually all towered airports be discontinued.
>
> This is really gonna work great at places like Newark, LaGuardia, and
> OHare.
>

[Robert M. Gary]

That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
they go through their last checklist.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
> is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
> how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
> because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
> they go through their last checklist.

A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from
the runway, I can typically taxi onto the active and be rolling at full
throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for
takeoff when the airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from
clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Yea.. just think of all the near collisions it will avoid!
>

How many?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the
> runway, I can typically taxi onto the active and be rolling at full
> throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for
> takeoff when the airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from
> clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>

How long do you think it takes a heavy to do the same?

[Newps]

It's not going away for everybody. Selected airports may lose it.
You'll never see the major airports lose it.



Matt Whiting wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
>> is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
>> how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
>> because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
>> they go through their last checklist.
>
>
> A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from
> the runway, I can typically taxi onto the active and be rolling at full
> throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for
> takeoff when the airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from
> clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>
> Matt

[[email protected]]

Must be nice...my Commander requires bringing power from idle to
takeoff in no less than 30 seconds. Some of the big radials have even
slower time limits.

Craig C.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Can "is different than "do". Just hang out at your local airport and
watch the average GA drivers. You'd be amazed at the amount of time
people spend sitting on the runway.

-Robert

[Blueskies]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
>> is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
>> how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
>> because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
>> they go through their last checklist.
>
> A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the runway, I can typically taxi onto the
> active and be rolling at full throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for takeoff when the
> airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>
> Matt

Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft on the runway...

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the
>>runway, I can typically taxi onto the active and be rolling at full
>>throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for
>>takeoff when the airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from
>>clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>>
>
>
> How long do you think it takes a heavy to do the same?
>
>

The one's I've flown take maybe 20-30 seconds. So, you just lead them a
little more while the landing airplane is rolling out. I don't think
this is any less safe then P&H. I didn't mind P&H in my Skylane as I
could see out the back windows enough to tell if someone was going to
land on me. However, in the Arrow I now fly, you are blind towards the
rear.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Blueskies wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
>>>is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
>>>how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
>>>because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
>>>they go through their last checklist.
>>
>>A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the runway, I can typically taxi onto the
>>active and be rolling at full throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for takeoff when the
>>airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft on the runway...
>
>

That can be changed also.


Matt

[Newps]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
>>>is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
>>>how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
>>>because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
>>>they go through their last checklist.
>>
>>A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the runway, I can typically taxi onto the
>>active and be rolling at full throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for takeoff when the
>>airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft on the runway...

Sure there can. The only requirement is that that other aircraft be off
the runway before you get on it and start your takeoff roll. It's
called anticipated separation and applies to any separation standard.
As long as the separation is there when it's needed all the rest is
irrelavant.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

" Blueskies" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft
> on the runway...
>


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal

Section 9. Departure Procedures and Separation

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation exists
if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts
takeoff roll.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The one's I've flown take maybe 20-30 seconds. So, you just lead them a
> little more while the landing airplane is rolling out.
>

Lead them a little more? You mean delay the takeoff clearance a little
more, don't you?


>
> I don't think this is any less safe then P&H.
>

The problem with P&H is not in holding aircraft on a runway, it's in
clearing other aircraft to land while aircraft are holding in position on
the runway. The solution is simple; stop clearing aircraft to land when
aircraft are holding in position.

[Ben Hallert]

Something I heard on the radio a few months ago while overflying KCMA:

PLANE: Camarillo Tower, Cessna 123 at runway... uh... twenty six.
TOWER: Cessna 123, say your intentions.
PLANE: I'd like to take off.
TOWER: Cessna 123, position and hold, runway two six.
PLANE: Um, I'm at runway two six.
TOWER: Roger, position and hold on runway two six.
PLANE: Well, my position is runway two six, and I don't understand what
you mean.
TOWER: Confirm, Cessna 123, you're at runway two six and you're NOT on
the runway?
PLANE: Yeah, and I'm holding my position here.
TOWER: Drive onto the runway and hold your position, Cessna 123.
PLANE: (pilot keys transmit button, but there's a long silence as he
tries to wrap his head around the instruction
until:).....................huh?
TOWER: (pause, teeth gnashing sounds inserted by my imagination.)
Cessna 123, cleared for takeoff, runway two six.
PLANE: Cleared for takeoff, Cessna 123......(five second pause, then he
keys up again).....oh, and I'm departing to the right.

Sometimes, I think that radio conversations like this are staged for
the benefit of making nearby student pilots feel better about their
radio work.

[Dave S]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>Yea.. just think of all the near collisions it will avoid!
>>
>
>
> How many?
>

Up to ALL of them on the runway? In theory, of course, :P

Dave

[Newps]

Roger wrote:

>
>
> And if it doesn't work out the plane on final does a go around.
> Couple of times I've been cleared to land and heard, Thirty Three
> Romeo, go around, aircraft on the runway!".

The identified problem is because the controller forgets about the
aircraft in position and lets the aircraft land over the top of the one
on the runway.

[Blueskies]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> " Blueskies" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft
>> on the runway...
>>
>
>
> FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
>
> Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal
>
> Section 9. Departure Procedures and Separation
>
> 3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
>
> Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation exists
> if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts
> takeoff roll.
>

Thanks!

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The one's I've flown take maybe 20-30 seconds. So, you just lead them a
>>little more while the landing airplane is rolling out.
>>
>
>
> Lead them a little more? You mean delay the takeoff clearance a little
> more, don't you?

No, I meant give the takeoff clearance a little sooner while the
aircraft that just landed is still going down the runway heading for the
taxiway. This would have the same advantage as P&H in most circumstances.


>>I don't think this is any less safe then P&H.
>>
>
>
> The problem with P&H is not in holding aircraft on a runway, it's in
> clearing other aircraft to land while aircraft are holding in position on
> the runway. The solution is simple; stop clearing aircraft to land when
> aircraft are holding in position.

Yes, that works also, but then what is the point of P&H if not to get
more throughput per active runway?

Matt

[aaronw]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:47:29 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>Several times I've been looking at a quarter mile, or longer, line of
>planes ahead and heard, Thirty Three Romeo, turn on next taxiway, hold
>short for departing traffic. Expect intersection departure. When they
>said cleared for departure it had the word "expedite" in there. (Do
>they still do that? Intersection take offs mixing with the big guys.
>I haven't been into one of the really busy airports in over 6 or 7
>years.)

I was leaving KIAD once in the 172 and got an intersection departure
from Y (or maybe Z, but I think Y) from 30, skipping ahead of a jet or
two that was back at the threshold.

aw

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> Several times I've been looking at a quarter mile, or longer, line of
> planes ahead and heard, Thirty Three Romeo, turn on next taxiway, hold
> short for departing traffic. Expect intersection departure. When they
> said cleared for departure it had the word "expedite" in there. (Do
> they still do that?

So they let you jump line, so you could get off quicker? Cool!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote

> Sometimes, I think that radio conversations like this are staged for
> the benefit of making nearby student pilots feel better about their
> radio work.

Nah, there are really people out there taking lessons that are *that*
clueless. I've heard quite a few conversations that bad, and worse. Some
of them end up being requested to call the tower. Some of them are told on
air that they are getting violated, and a number to call.

I often wonder how many of these end up getting their ticket. More of them
than should, I suppose. Sigh.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> And if it doesn't work out the plane on final does a go around.
> Couple of times I've been cleared to land and heard, Thirty Three
> Romeo, go around, aircraft on the runway!".

Interesting things like that happen almost daily, even multiple times daily
at OSH during the last week of July. Most often, when someone does not
understand what "immediate turn into the grass, when speed allows."

Or, "keep it in the air until the (blank) dot.

Right?
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:40:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the
>> runway, I can typically taxi onto the active and be rolling at full
>> throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for
>> takeoff when the airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from
>> clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>>
>
>How long do you think it takes a heavy to do the same?

A DC-9 isn't a heavy, but I was on one at Philli International who was
bringing up the power during the turn onto the runway. We could hear
the tire squeal inside the plane. Still, I'd probably be able to get
out there and rolling sooner than he could. OTOH he could be "way up
there" while I'm just leaving the pattern.

I've always found it a bit intimidating to be taxiing behind something
I could taxi under, particularly with the knowledge there is another
big one right behind that I hope doesn't forget I'm there.

Several times I've been looking at a quarter mile, or longer, line of
planes ahead and heard, Thirty Three Romeo, turn on next taxiway, hold
short for departing traffic. Expect intersection departure. When they
said cleared for departure it had the word "expedite" in there. (Do
they still do that? Intersection take offs mixing with the big guys.
I haven't been into one of the really busy airports in over 6 or 7
years.)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:23:51 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
> Blueskies wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>>That's hard to believe. P&H really saves a lot of time when the runway
>>>>is really busy. The only way I can see this working is if pilot learn
>>>>how to do "cleared for immediate takeoff". Most controllers avoid this
>>>>because "immediate" for many pilots means sitting on the runway while
>>>>they go through their last checklist.
>>>
>>>A lot of time? I don't see it. Unless the hold line is way back from the runway, I can typically taxi onto the
>>>active and be rolling at full throttle in 10 seconds or less. All they need to do is clear me for takeoff when the
>>>airplane that just landed is 10 seconds or so from clearing the runway and no time at all will be lost.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft on the runway...
>
>Sure there can. The only requirement is that that other aircraft be off
>the runway before you get on it and start your takeoff roll. It's
>called anticipated separation and applies to any separation standard.
>As long as the separation is there when it's needed all the rest is
>irrelavant.

Many, many, many years ago when they wee mixing prop and jet airliners
I remember sitting in the right seat of a V-35 on departure from
Detroit Metro. (DTW). We were rapidly gaining on the big tail of a
Constellation (which getting bigger fast) while a 707 was getting
closer and closer behind. We lifted off (would have cleared the tail
even if they were on the runway) as the Constellation turned off. As
I recall the 707 either caught us or passed us on roll out. But then
again as time passes my memory of that 707 has it closer and closer.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger

[Roger]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:00:12 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Roger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> And if it doesn't work out the plane on final does a go around.
>> Couple of times I've been cleared to land and heard, Thirty Three
>> Romeo, go around, aircraft on the runway!".
>
>The identified problem is because the controller forgets about the
>aircraft in position and lets the aircraft land over the top of the one
>on the runway.

Sounds like Oshkosh<:-))
"Over the top" would scare the crap out of the people on the plane
holding as well, but I guess that's better than "on top" which has
happened on several occasions. The last one I remember was an
airliner landing on a commuter at night in California..

When given a position and hold, I always set at a slight angle so I
can see any thing that might be coming from behind.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:38:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>" Blueskies" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Don't think takeoff clearance can be made when there is still an aircraft
>> on the runway...
>>
>
>
>FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
>
>Chapter 3. Airport Traffic Control-- Terminal
>
>Section 9. Departure Procedures and Separation
>
>3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION
>
>Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation exists
>if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts
>takeoff roll.
>

And if it doesn't work out the plane on final does a go around.
Couple of times I've been cleared to land and heard, Thirty Three
Romeo, go around, aircraft on the runway!".

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:48:08 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote
>
>> And if it doesn't work out the plane on final does a go around.
>> Couple of times I've been cleared to land and heard, Thirty Three
>> Romeo, go around, aircraft on the runway!".
>
>Interesting things like that happen almost daily, even multiple times daily
>at OSH during the last week of July. Most often, when someone does not
>understand what "immediate turn into the grass, when speed allows."
>
>Or, "keep it in the air until the (blank) dot.

As I've said before, OSH is not a place for pilots who always do a
stabilized pattern. They tell you what, when, and where.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Right?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Up to ALL of them on the runway? In theory, of course, :P
>

How many is that? What's the historical trend?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Something I heard on the radio a few months ago while overflying KCMA:
>
> PLANE: Camarillo Tower, Cessna 123 at runway... uh... twenty six.
> TOWER: Cessna 123, say your intentions.
> PLANE: I'd like to take off.
> TOWER: Cessna 123, position and hold, runway two six.
> PLANE: Um, I'm at runway two six.
> TOWER: Roger, position and hold on runway two six.
> PLANE: Well, my position is runway two six, and I don't understand what
> you mean.
> TOWER: Confirm, Cessna 123, you're at runway two six and you're NOT on
> the runway?
> PLANE: Yeah, and I'm holding my position here.
> TOWER: Drive onto the runway and hold your position, Cessna 123.
> PLANE: (pilot keys transmit button, but there's a long silence as he
> tries to wrap his head around the instruction
> until:).....................huh?
> TOWER: (pause, teeth gnashing sounds inserted by my imagination.)
> Cessna 123, cleared for takeoff, runway two six.
> PLANE: Cleared for takeoff, Cessna 123......(five second pause, then he
> keys up again).....oh, and I'm departing to the right.
>
> Sometimes, I think that radio conversations like this are staged for
> the benefit of making nearby student pilots feel better about their
> radio work.
>

A couple of years ago the phrase "taxi into position and hold" was shortened
to "position and hold". I've noticed it's caused a bit of confusion even
among experienced pilots. It seems it's being interpreted as "hold your
position".

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> A couple of years ago the phrase "taxi into position and hold" was shortened
> to "position and hold". I've noticed it's caused a bit of confusion even
> among experienced pilots. It seems it's being interpreted as "hold your
> position".

Which can become very dangerous if the confusion happens the other way
round. For this reason the ICAO phraseology is "line up".

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which can become very dangerous if the confusion happens the other way
> round. For this reason the ICAO phraseology is "line up".
>

How would the confusion happen the other way round?

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>Which can become very dangerous if the confusion happens the other way
>>round. For this reason the ICAO phraseology is "line up".

> How would the confusion happen the other way round?

You're joking, aren't you?

Stefan

[Ben Hallert]

"Cessna 1234 Foxtrot, taxi to and HOLD short of two one."

Our intrepid pilot, for one reason or another, mistakes this for
position and hold, not hold short of. Another thread regarding to use
of 'Wilco' instead of readbacks rears its ugly head, or the tower
mishears the Cessna's readback, or the readback is ambiguous: "Santa
Monica Tower, Cessna 1234 Foxtrot holding two one."

When you have two different 'holds' in the lexicon, there's opportunity
for confusion. Non-sterile cockpit, background noise, staticy radio,
any of those plus a pilot or controller who isn't _listening_ but
instead is expecting to hear something different, and you could get the
reciprocal.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Peter R.]

Ben Hallert > wrote:

> "Cessna 1234 Foxtrot, taxi to and HOLD short of two one."
>
> Our intrepid pilot, for one reason or another, mistakes this for
> position and hold, not hold short of. Another thread regarding to use
> of 'Wilco' instead of readbacks rears its ugly head, or the tower
> mishears the Cessna's readback, or the readback is ambiguous: "Santa
> Monica Tower, Cessna 1234 Foxtrot holding two one."

While I realize that it is a requirement for pilots to read back all hold
short instructions, the controllers at the Class C airport where I am based
are very good about ensuring that pilots read back the hold short
instruction exactly as they heard it.

If there is any apparent confusion or ambiguous wording by the pilot, the
ground or tower controller will continue to repeat the instruction, along
with addition choice words ("I NEED you to repeat the hold short
instruction exactly as I worded it.") until the pilot gets it right.

On a related note, I have to admit that just recently I mistakenly used a
"wilco" in response to Boston Logan tower's instruction to "position and
hold." The tower controller very calmly repeated the instruction and
hinted that he was expecting a full readback (I cannot remember exactly how
he hinted it, but whatever he did worked).

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Newps]

Ben Hallert wrote:

> "Cessna 1234 Foxtrot, taxi to and HOLD short of two one."

Improper phraseology, there's no reason to add "and hold short of two one."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're joking, aren't you?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> "Cessna 1234 Foxtrot, taxi to and HOLD short of two one."
>
> Our intrepid pilot, for one reason or another, mistakes this for
> position and hold, not hold short of. Another thread regarding to use
> of 'Wilco' instead of readbacks rears its ugly head, or the tower
> mishears the Cessna's readback, or the readback is ambiguous: "Santa
> Monica Tower, Cessna 1234 Foxtrot holding two one."
>
> When you have two different 'holds' in the lexicon, there's opportunity
> for confusion. Non-sterile cockpit, background noise, staticy radio,
> any of those plus a pilot or controller who isn't _listening_ but
> instead is expecting to hear something different, and you could get the
> reciprocal.
>

Perhaps, but that's not what we're discussing. I pointed out that pilots
sometimes hold their position short of the runway instead of taxiing into
position on the runway and holding when issued the standard phrase "position
and hold". Stefan said that "can become very dangerous if the confusion
happens the other way round." But the other way round would be taxiing onto
the runway, which is what the controller wants.

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>You're joking, aren't you?

> No.

If a pilot can mistakenly understand "hold position" instead of
"position and hold", then it doesn't take much imagination to see that
he can also mistakenly understand "position and hold" instead of "hold
position". Does this take so much imagination?

Example
Pilot (waiting at holding point to some runway): Asks for something.
Tower: "Hold position!" (Because there's a plane in short final.)
Pilot: Understands "position and hold".

Stefan

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>You're joking, aren't you?

> No.

If a pilot can mistakenly understand "hold position" instead of
"position and hold", then it doesn't take much imagination to see that
he can also mistakenly understand "position and hold" instead of "hold
position".

Example
Pilot (waiting at holding point to some runway): Asks for something.
Tower: "Hold position!" (Because there's a plane in short final.)
Pilot: Understands "position and hold".

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>
> If a pilot can mistakenly understand "hold position" instead of "position
> and hold", then it doesn't take much imagination to see that he can also
> mistakenly understand "position and hold" instead of "hold position". Does
> this take so much imagination?
>
> Example
> Pilot (waiting at holding point to some runway): Asks for something.
> Tower: "Hold position!" (Because there's a plane in short final.)
> Pilot: Understands "position and hold".
>

That may be, but we're not talking about the phrase "hold position".

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>> "Cessna 1234 Foxtrot, taxi to and HOLD short of two one."
>
> Improper phraseology, there's no reason to add "and hold short of two
> one."

Really? What does "Cessna 1234 Foxtrot, taxi to" mean to a pilot?

:)

[Stefan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> That may be, but we're not talking about the phrase "hold position".

It's inherent to confusions that there are two phrases involved, one you
did say and one you "weren't talking about", but the other party was
thinking to hear nevertheless.

Stefan

[Dave Butler]

Morgans wrote:
> "Roger" > wrote
>
>
>>Several times I've been looking at a quarter mile, or longer, line of
>>planes ahead and heard, Thirty Three Romeo, turn on next taxiway, hold
>>short for departing traffic. Expect intersection departure. When they
>>said cleared for departure it had the word "expedite" in there. (Do
>>they still do that?
>
>
> So they let you jump line, so you could get off quicker? Cool!

Sometimes the big guys have in-trail separation requirements if they are going
the same direction, and they can get off a bugsmasher in the interval while
they're waiting for the required in-trail separation on the jets.

DGB

[Mike Weller]

On 10 Aug 2005 12:22:09 -0700, "Paul kgyy" >
wrote:

>I saw an announcement on Aeronews this morning that the FAA is
>proposing that the "taxi into position and hold" process used at
>virtually all towered airports be discontinued.
>
>This is really gonna work great at places like Newark, LaGuardia, and
>OHare.

I've never felt comfortable sitting in "position and hold". And I've
done it many times.

My opinion is that it is much better to taxi onto the runway and kind
of sit sideways, so you can see everything.

That's so much better than thinking, "I hope no one is behind us!"

Mike Weller

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
news:1124231216.c341073bb004b05a4f8ce94bd50ab494@o nlynews...
>
> I've never felt comfortable sitting in "position and hold". And I've
> done it many times.
>
> My opinion is that it is much better to taxi onto the runway and kind
> of sit sideways, so you can see everything.
>
> That's so much better than thinking, "I hope no one is behind us!"
>

The purpose of P&H is to expedite the flow of traffic. Sitting kind of
sideways delays your departure.

[John Clear]

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>news:1124231216.c341073bb004b05a4f8ce94bd50ab494@o nlynews...
>>
>> I've never felt comfortable sitting in "position and hold". And I've
>> done it many times.
>> My opinion is that it is much better to taxi onto the runway and kind
>> of sit sideways, so you can see everything.
>
>The purpose of P&H is to expedite the flow of traffic. Sitting kind of
>sideways delays your departure.

There is sideways 90 degrees to the runway heading, and sideways
a few degrees off of runway heading so that you have a clear view
of what might be landing on you. I always try to position the
plane so I can see behind me when given 'position and hold'. The
extra half second that it take to turn to runway heading on the
take off roll is no big deal.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:44:28 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>The purpose of P&H is to expedite the flow of traffic. Sitting kind of
>sideways delays your departure.

Said delay is insignificant for a 3,000 lb gross aircraft.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Mike Weller" > wrote in message
> news:1124231216.c341073bb004b05a4f8ce94bd50ab494@o nlynews...
>
>>I've never felt comfortable sitting in "position and hold". And I've
>>done it many times.
>>
>>My opinion is that it is much better to taxi onto the runway and kind
>>of sit sideways, so you can see everything.
>>
>>That's so much better than thinking, "I hope no one is behind us!"
>>
>
>
> The purpose of P&H is to expedite the flow of traffic. Sitting kind of
> sideways delays your departure.

Slightly, but having another airplane land on top of you delays your
departure even more.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Slightly, but having another airplane land on top of you delays your
> departure even more.
>

Well, if the visibility is such that the arriving aircraft can't see you and
it lands on top of you, then it's unlikely that sitting kind of sideways
would allow you to see him.

[Jose]

> Well, if the visibility is such that the arriving aircraft can't see you and
> it lands on top of you, then it's unlikely that sitting kind of sideways
> would allow you to see him.

It is unwise to =depend= on somebody seeing you. It might not be the
visibility that prevents the arriving aircraft from noticing you, or
perhaps from doing anything about it (one might have taxiied into
position in error, detected later by the laws of physics)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> It is unwise to =depend= on somebody seeing you.

If you you're not prepared to depend on somebody you're not prepared to
operate at controlled fields or under IFR.

[Jose]

> If you you're not prepared to depend on somebody you're not prepared to
> operate at controlled fields or under IFR.

Ok, I'll reword. It's unwise to unnecessarily depend on someone to see you.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> Well, if the visibility is such that the arriving aircraft can't see you
and
> it lands on top of you, then it's unlikely that sitting kind of sideways
> would allow you to see him.

I don't see why you would think that.

Ever been rear ended, sitting at a stop light, or such? (in a car, of
course)

I have been, and a very hard hit, about 45 mph. When ever I stop now, I
look in my mirror, and if I see that somone is not going to stop, I am ready
to take evasive action, like going off the side of the road, or into another
lane.

It may not work, but I'm sure going to try and avoid that, if I can.

Same thing for sitting sideways, to get a view of the glideslope. If
someone is coming in, and I saw them, I could try to get to the side of the
runway, or back to the taxiway, or into the ditch. At least you would have
a fighting chance to avoid a catastrophe. Sitting straight, some planes
couldn't see squat, so there is a *good* reason for the sideways trick. It
couldn't take more than 3 or 4 seconds to get straight in the first part of
your takeoff roll.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Slightly, but having another airplane land on top of you delays your
>>departure even more.
>>
>
>
> Well, if the visibility is such that the arriving aircraft can't see you and
> it lands on top of you, then it's unlikely that sitting kind of sideways
> would allow you to see him.
>
>

The OPs point was that he could see the plane approaching and taxi off
the runway out of the way.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't see why you would think that.
>

Logic causes me to think that.


>
> Ever been rear ended, sitting at a stop light, or such? (in a car, of
> course)
>
> I have been, and a very hard hit, about 45 mph. When ever I stop now, I
> look in my mirror, and if I see that somone is not going to stop, I am
> ready to take evasive action, like going off the side of the road, or into
> another lane.
>
> It may not work, but I'm sure going to try and avoid that, if I can.
>
> Same thing for sitting sideways, to get a view of the glideslope. If
> someone is coming in, and I saw them, I could try to get to the side of
> the runway, or back to the taxiway, or into the ditch. At least you would
> have a fighting chance to avoid a catastrophe.
>

Why can't the incoming pilot see you and go around?


>
> Sitting straight, some planes couldn't see squat, so there is a *good*
> reason
> for the sideways trick. It couldn't take more than 3 or 4 seconds to get
> straight
> in the first part of your takeoff roll.
>

How long it takes depends on the airplane. "Position and Hold" means "taxi
onto the departure runway in takeoff position and hold." If you hold in a
position that requires additional ground maneuvering before beginning your
takeoff roll you have not complied with the instruction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The OPs point was that he could see the plane approaching and taxi off the
> runway out of the way.
>

Why can't the approaching plane see the OP's plane and go around?

[Jose]

> If you hold in a
> position that requires additional ground maneuvering before beginning your
> takeoff roll you have not complied with the instruction.

However if you can begin your takeoff roll from the position in which
you have stopped, and straighten out =on= your takeoff roll, you have
complied with the instruction.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

You're arguing for the sake of the argument. I quit.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Why can't the incoming pilot see you and go around?

Is the threshold always visible to the pilot for all aircraft when
in normal landing configuration?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is the threshold always visible to the pilot for all aircraft when
> in normal landing configuration?
>

In conditions where a pilot in position could see an approaching aircraft,
except for very short final, yes.

[Bob Noel]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Is the threshold always visible to the pilot for all aircraft when
> > in normal landing configuration?
>
> In conditions where a pilot in position could see an approaching aircraft,
> except for very short final, yes.

Then why did one airliner land on top of a commuter (iirc) a number of years ago?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then why did one airliner land on top of a commuter (iirc) a number of
> years ago?
>

Were the conditions such that a pilot in position could see an approaching
aircraft?

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Then why did one airliner land on top of a commuter (iirc) a number of
> > years ago?
>
> Were the conditions such that a pilot in position could see an approaching
> aircraft?

My understanding is that the airport was VFR at at the time.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> My understanding is that the airport was VFR at at the time.
>

Let me know when you're sure.

[Ben Hallert]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Let me know when you're sure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA91MA018A&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA91MA018A&rpt=fi

16 miles reported visibility, 30000 scattered. That should qualify as
VFR for most people.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA91MA018A&rpt=fa
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA91MA018A&rpt=fi
>
> 16 miles reported visibility, 30000 scattered. That should qualify as
> VFR for most people.
>

Yup, but Bob's question was, "Is the threshold always visible to the pilot
for all aircraft when
in normal landing configuration?" The aircraft in position on the runway
was an intersection departure.

The question remains, if neither pilot aboard the landing 737 could see the
Fairchild 227 on the runway, why should we believe the crew of the Fairchild
227 could have seen the incoming 737 if they had been cocked some thirty
degrees or so from the runway centerline?

[Ben Hallert]

Hi Steve,

My post was in response to the following exchange:

>>Bob Noel:
>> My understanding is that the airport was VFR at at the time.
>Steven P. McNicoll:
>Let me know when you're sure.

Best regards,

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[peter]

> The question remains, if neither pilot aboard the landing 737 could see the
> Fairchild 227 on the runway, why should we believe the crew of the Fairchild
> 227 could have seen the incoming 737 if they had been cocked some thirty
> degrees or so from the runway centerline?

The accident happened shortly before sunset on runway 24. So the
pilots on the 737 would have been looking nearly into the sun whereas a
pilot looking back would be seeing a landing light in a darkening sky.

But regardless of the details of this particular incident, why not have
the redundancy of having both aircraft crews in a position where they
could observe and possibly avert an imminent collision?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I meant give the takeoff clearance a little sooner while the aircraft
> that just landed is still going down the runway heading for the taxiway.
> This would have the same advantage as P&H in most circumstances.
>

That has the disadvantage of not ensuring runway separation.


>
> Yes, that works also, but then what is the point of P&H if not to get more
> throughput per active runway?
>

The point of position and hold IS to get more throughput per active runway,
and it does. Withholding the landing clearance while an aircraft is in
position wouldn't change that. Right now, aircraft can be cleared to land
while a departing aircraft is in position on the runway. Obviously, some
action has to be taken before the arriving aircraft can land safely, the
controller expects to issue a takeoff clearance to the aircraft in position
before the arriving aircraft gets too close. But what if he doesn't for
some reason?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"peter" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The accident happened shortly before sunset on runway 24. So the
> pilots on the 737 would have been looking nearly into the sun whereas a
> pilot looking back would be seeing a landing light in a darkening sky.
>

How is it that they were able to see the runway but not an airplane of 95'
wingspan and 82' length sitting on it? Why would a pilot looking back see a
landing light in a darkening sky if the sun was brightly shining on the
approaching airplane? You can't have it both ways.

When I find the sun shining in my eyes like that I adjust my visor.


>
> But regardless of the details of this particular incident, why not have
> the redundancy of having both aircraft crews in a position where they
> could observe and possibly avert an imminent collision?
>

That would require the airplane in position to turn towards approaching
aircraft and defeat the purpose of position and hold.

[Jose]

> How is it that they were able to see the runway but not an airplane of 95'
> wingspan and 82' length sitting on it?

I don't know; I wasn't there. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me
that an airplane could appear to blend into the runway under certain
conditions, that being one of them. Granted, they could "see" the
airplane, inasmuch as photons reflected from the plane entered the eye.
However, it might not have been recognized as an airplane if the
contrast were low enough, there was enough glare, the pilots were
focused on ("fixated on?") some other aspect of the approach (maybe the
theshold markings, the far end, the sight picture...) It would clearly
be pilot error, but it's possible for pilots to =make= errors, even
experienced ones.

> Why would a pilot looking back see a
> landing light in a darkening sky if the sun was brightly shining on the
> approaching airplane?

That depends on the albedo of the airplane, the angle it presented to
the sun, the brightness of the landing light, and the exact direction it
was facing. It does not sound unreasonable to me, although I wasn't
there at that exact moment.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[peter]

>> The accident happened shortly before sunset on runway 24. So the
>> pilots on the 737 would have been looking nearly into the sun whereas a
>> pilot looking back would be seeing a landing light in a darkening sky.

> How is it that they were able to see the runway but not an airplane of 95'
> wingspan and 82' length sitting on it?

Because they were human and sometimes make mistakes, especially under
conditions of poor visibility such as caused by having to look in the
direction of the sun near the horizon.

> Why would a pilot looking back see a
> landing light in a darkening sky if the sun was brightly shining on the
> approaching airplane? You can't have it both ways.

Go out just before sunset and look at the sky in the direction opposite
from the sun. You should notice that it's already considerably darker
than at midday even though the sun has not yet set. Looking in that
direction a plane would be very easy to see because it would be
brightly lit by the sun and is set against a darker background sky. If
the landing light is on that would make it even more visible.

So at the time of this accident the crew of the landing plane had
relatively poor visual conditions while if the crew of the plane on the
ground had been in a position to look back they would have had
excellent visibility.

> When I find the sun shining in my eyes like that I adjust my visor.

That helps but certainly doesn't fully eliminate the problem.

>> But regardless of the details of this particular incident, why not have
>> the redundancy of having both aircraft crews in a position where they
>> could observe and possibly avert an imminent collision?

> That would require the airplane in position to turn towards approaching
> aircraft and defeat the purpose of position and hold.

Presumably the purpose is to be able to respond quickly to a clearance
to take off. If the plane is angled but full power can still be
applied and the plane's path down the runway straightened out in the
first few seconds of the takeoff roll then no time would be lost and
the same purpose would still be achieved.

[Ben Hallert]

> How is it that they were able to see the runway but not an airplane of 95'
> wingspan and 82' length sitting on it?

People see what they expect to see. Same with hearing what they expect
to hear. Radio clearances have readbacks to protect against this, and
visual stuff have co-pilots to be a second opinion, but sometimes the
system breaks down. In this case, it broke down terribly.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[peter]

Ben wrote:
>> How is it that they were able to see the runway but not an airplane of 95'
>> wingspan and 82' length sitting on it?

> People see what they expect to see.

Yes. An interesting illustration of that was provided in the
psychology study that showed a film of a group passing basketballs back
and forth. The audience was asked to watch the film and count the
number of passes between members of the white-shirted team. After the
one minute film the audience was asked to write down the number of
passes and anything unusual they may have noticed during the film.
Less than half commented on the fact that toward the middle of the clip
a large man in a gorilla costume walked across the room, stood right in
front of the camera and beat his chest and then slowly walked back out.
See http://apps.carleton.edu/voice/features.php3?id=106

When our attention is focussed on one aspect of a scene it's very easy
to ignore everything else.

[cjcampbell]

Most of the near collisions on the runway that I am aware of have
involved aircraft that were either both taking off or both were landing.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I don't know; I wasn't there. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that
> an airplane could appear to blend into the runway under certain
> conditions, that being one of them. Granted, they could "see" the
> airplane, inasmuch as photons reflected from the plane entered the eye.
> However, it might not have been recognized as an airplane if the contrast
> were low enough, there was enough glare, the pilots were focused on
> ("fixated on?") some other aspect of the approach (maybe the theshold
> markings, the far end, the sight picture...) It would clearly be pilot
> error, but it's possible for pilots to =make= errors, even experienced
> ones.
>

Well, if the conditions are such that the arriving aircraft cannot see an
aircraft on the runway, it's unlikely the aircraft on the runway could have
spotted the arriving aircraft even if it had been cocked towards it. The
aircraft on the runway has to scan a larger area and at varying distances.
The arriving aircraft has to scan a much smaller area and at a fixed
distance, the runway surface.


>
> That depends on the albedo of the airplane, the angle it presented to the
> sun, the brightness of the landing light, and the exact direction it was
> facing. It does not sound unreasonable to me, although I wasn't there at
> that exact moment.
>

The landing light may have made the arriving aircraft harder to spot. In
WWII it was found that forward facing lights mounted on ASW aircraft allowed
them to get closer to surfaced submarines before being spotted.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"peter" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Because they were human and sometimes make mistakes, especially under
> conditions of poor visibility such as caused by having to look in the
> direction of the sun near the horizon.
>

Why would they be looking in the direction of the sun near the horizon
instead of in the direction of the runway?


>
> Go out just before sunset and look at the sky in the direction opposite
> from the sun. You should notice that it's already considerably darker
> than at midday even though the sun has not yet set. Looking in that
> direction a plane would be very easy to see because it would be
> brightly lit by the sun and is set against a darker background sky. If
> the landing light is on that would make it even more visible.
>
> So at the time of this accident the crew of the landing plane had
> relatively poor visual conditions while if the crew of the plane on the
> ground had been in a position to look back they would have had
> excellent visibility.
>

If it's truly just before sunset there isn't much sun above the horizon to
be shining in the eyes of the approaching crew.


>
> Presumably the purpose is to be able to respond quickly to a clearance
> to take off. If the plane is angled but full power can still be
> applied and the plane's path down the runway straightened out in the
> first few seconds of the takeoff roll then no time would be lost and
> the same purpose would still be achieved.
>

Time is lost because full power is not being applied in the direction of the
takeoff roll.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> People see what they expect to see.
>

A pilot sitting on a runway obviously wouldn't expect to see an airplane
landing on that runway.

[peter]

Steven wrote:
>> That depends on the albedo of the airplane, the angle it presented to the
>> sun, the brightness of the landing light, and the exact direction it was
>> facing. It does not sound unreasonable to me, although I wasn't there at
>> that exact moment.

> The landing light may have made the arriving aircraft harder to spot. In
> WWII it was found that forward facing lights mounted on ASW aircraft allowed
> them to get closer to surfaced submarines before being spotted.

I expect the pilots of those planes knew enough to make their attack
runs with the sun at their back; i.e. a direction where the vision of
the submariners would be impaired.
Lights can be used as camouflage when you have a relatively dark plane
silouetted against a brighter sky. But in this circumstance where the
landing plane is observed from the direction of an almost setting sun
you have the opposite situation; a brightly illuminated plane seen
against an already darkening sky. Adding lights would then only make
the plane more visible.

Similarly the bright white winter coat of an arctic hare is good
camouflage, but the same color on an albino rabbit in a hay field just
makes it stand out as an obvious target.

[peter]

Steven wrote:
>> Because they were human and sometimes make mistakes, especially under
>> conditions of poor visibility such as caused by having to look in the
>> direction of the sun near the horizon.

>Why would they be looking in the direction of the sun near the horizon
>instead of in the direction of the runway?

Landing on runway 24 the direction is almost the same. Also note that
the sunlight would be reflecting off things on the ground such as
rooftops, any pools of water, vehicle windows, etc. Even if you can
lower a visor to hide the sun itself, there are still lots of bright
sources of reflected light on the ground that can create glare and
distraction and make it that much easier to make a mistake and miss
seeing the plane on the runway.

>> Go out just before sunset and look at the sky in the direction opposite
>> from the sun. You should notice that it's already considerably darker
>> than at midday even though the sun has not yet set. Looking in that
>> direction a plane would be very easy to see because it would be
>> brightly lit by the sun and is set against a darker background sky. If
>> the landing light is on that would make it even more visible.

>> So at the time of this accident the crew of the landing plane had
>> relatively poor visual conditions while if the crew of the plane on the
>> ground had been in a position to look back they would have had
>> excellent visibility.

>If it's truly just before sunset there isn't much sun above the horizon to
>be shining in the eyes of the approaching crew.

As I recall it was about half an hour before sunset so all of the sun
was still above the horizon. But the sky at that time is already much
darker than during the middle of the day.

>> Presumably the purpose is to be able to respond quickly to a clearance
>> to take off. If the plane is angled but full power can still be
>> applied and the plane's path down the runway straightened out in the
>> first few seconds of the takeoff roll then no time would be lost and
>> the same purpose would still be achieved.

>Time is lost because full power is not being applied in the direction of the
>takeoff roll.

No, it takes a certain amount of time for a plane to reach takeoff
speed after the application of full throttle. Whether the first few
seconds of that acceleration are spent going straight down the runway
or starting out at an angle and then straightening out will have no
significant effect on the time to accelerate to the critical speed.

Consider this from an energy standpoint. The engines need to provide
enough power for a long enough time to give the plane enough kinetic
energy for takeoff. The only effect of starting out at an angle and
then straightening will be a miniscule increase in rolling resistance
of the nose wheel due to slight scrubbing forces. The energy lost to
that slight extra rolling resistance is negligible compared to the
total takeoff energy.

[Jose]

> Well, if the conditions are such that the arriving aircraft cannot see an
> aircraft on the runway, it's unlikely the aircraft on the runway could have
> spotted the arriving aircraft even if it had been cocked towards it. The
> aircraft on the runway has to scan a larger area and at varying distances.
> The arriving aircraft has to scan a much smaller area and at a fixed
> distance, the runway surface.

Black cat in a coal mine at night, hiding from a miner with a
flashlight. Who's got the odds?

> The landing light may have made the arriving aircraft harder to spot. In
> WWII it was found that forward facing lights mounted on ASW aircraft allowed
> them to get closer to surfaced submarines before being spotted.

Maybe. I haven't seen the study but do see where this could be true.
I've also read that bright colors in angular patterns made better
camoflauge than the standard green on green.

Depending on how the light hit, it could go either way in any specific case.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[peter]

Steven wrote:
>> People see what they expect to see.

> A pilot sitting on a runway obviously wouldn't expect to see an airplane
> landing on that runway.

Mike indicated that he would feel more comfortable positioning his
plane at an angle on the runway so he could look behind for landing
traffic. Since he'd be looking back specifically to look for incoming
planes he'd be unlikely to miss seeing such a plane especially if
lighting and weather conditions were favorable.

OTOH, the crew of a plane that's been cleared to land would be looking
at the runway primarily to judge their approach and might be more
likely to miss seeing another plane since they wouldn't be expecting
one there. Such a mistake would be more likely under poor visibility
conditions such as landing into a setting sun when glare from various
reflections would make objects on the ground harder to distinguish.

Such conditions could easily increase their effort to focus on viewing
the end of the runway and the numbers to judge their landing in much
the same way that viewers in the psychology perception test focussed on
the basketball passes and totally missed the presence of the gorilla.

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > People see what they expect to see.
>
> A pilot sitting on a runway obviously wouldn't expect to see an airplane
> landing on that runway.

Yeah, no pilot ever sees that, or ever even looks. That's how I was
taught years ago. Once cleared on the runway, I know it's always
mine and never ever need to look.

not

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:53:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>> If the plane is angled but full power can still be
>> applied and the plane's path down the runway straightened out in the
>> first few seconds of the takeoff roll then no time would be lost and
>> the same purpose would still be achieved.
>>
>
>Time is lost because full power is not being applied in the direction of the
>takeoff roll.

In your estimation, about how much time would be lost in the case of a
typical GA aircraft, a Cessna 172?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:58:25 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> > People see what they expect to see.
>>
>> A pilot sitting on a runway obviously wouldn't expect to see an airplane
>> landing on that runway.
>
>Yeah, no pilot ever sees that, or ever even looks. That's how I was
>taught years ago. Once cleared on the runway, I know it's always
>mine and never ever need to look.
>
>not

Exactly. Arguing that a pilot should place his aircraft in the path
of arriving traffic and in a position from which he is unable to
observer arriving traffic, in the name of expediency, is contrary to
good safety practice.

The fact that pilots may at times under IFR operations place the
well-being of their flights in the hands of ATC controllers does not
mitigate the risk caused by the Position And Hold procedure.