FAA to be phasing out "position and hold" in the US

[Peter R.]

I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."

At my home base, which is a class C airport in Syracuse, NY, the
elimination of this instruction could occur as soon as March 20th.

From the wording of the email, apparently this has already happened at
Philadelphia International and will probably sweep the country this spring.
The triple runway incursion at LAX last week seems to have hastened this
move.

While the traffic at our airport is light to moderate, I am curious how
this will impact airports like La Guardia or Boston Logan, two airports
where the P&H instruction definitely speeds up departures.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

I don't know about the big airports, but I do believe it would enhance
safety for us little guys, in many cases.

Once I am in position, I can no longer see traffic approaching from
behind me on final. It would be OK if I was only waiting for a takeoff
in front of me, but not if there is anything that might be--or get to
be--behind me. That's the situation that led to some confusion in a
situation I have referred to here before.

It might slow things down a little bit in the margin, but then again, a
collision slows lots of things down a whole lot... So at least at
first blush, if P&H goes away, I'm not going to cry a lot.

[GeorgeC]

I was listening to Palm Spring (PSP) on the Internet when someone ask if he
could taxi into portion and hold? The controller said "We don't do that
anymore."

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:50:58 -0500, "Peter R." > wrote:

>I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
>class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
>instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
>
>At my home base, which is a class C airport in Syracuse, NY, the
>elimination of this instruction could occur as soon as March 20th.
>
>From the wording of the email, apparently this has already happened at
>Philadelphia International and will probably sweep the country this spring.
>The triple runway incursion at LAX last week seems to have hastened this
>move.
>
>While the traffic at our airport is light to moderate, I am curious how
>this will impact airports like La Guardia or Boston Logan, two airports
>where the P&H instruction definitely speeds up departures.

GeorgeC

[Robert M. Gary]

Its alive and well in Sacramento. However, our position and hold point
is before the touchdown threshold so someone would have to land short
to land on top of you.

-Robert

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Its alive and well in Sacramento. However, our position and hold point
> is before the touchdown threshold so someone would have to land short
> to land on top of you.
>
> -Robert

Depends on how tall you are.

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."

Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
runway.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I don't know about the big airports, but I do believe it would enhance
> safety for us little guys, in many cases.
>
> Once I am in position, I can no longer see traffic approaching from
> behind me on final. It would be OK if I was only waiting for a takeoff
> in front of me, but not if there is anything that might be--or get to
> be--behind me. That's the situation that led to some confusion in a
> situation I have referred to here before.

I've never felt worried about someone landing on me while I'm holding in
position at a controlled airport, but perhaps the risk is more significant
than I'm aware. Have many such collisions actually occurred?

--Gary

[City Dweller]

Our airport, Caldwell (CDW), has two runways. Runways 22 and 27 are crossed
almost at the approach edge of Rwy 22.

The other day, I was landing on 22, and on a very short final (no more than
100 ft to the numbers and a crossing runway) I heard the controller say

" Cessna 123, runway 27, cleared for take-off"

which would mean I was about to be rammed from the left by a departing
Cessna. So I keyed the mike and uttered something in feeble protest. The
controller said to me curtly: "This is called 'anticipated separation'. The
aircraft was not even on the runway yet!"

I did apologize as I don't generally believe in arguing with the ATC.
However I thought that a position & hold instruction to that Cessna would be
more appropriate in that particular situation.

-- City Dweller



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
>
> At my home base, which is a class C airport in Syracuse, NY, the
> elimination of this instruction could occur as soon as March 20th.
>
> From the wording of the email, apparently this has already happened at
> Philadelphia International and will probably sweep the country this
> spring.
> The triple runway incursion at LAX last week seems to have hastened this
> move.
>
> While the traffic at our airport is light to moderate, I am curious how
> this will impact airports like La Guardia or Boston Logan, two airports
> where the P&H instruction definitely speeds up departures.
>
> --
> Peter

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."

Oh man, that is really going to screw up departures at AirVenture!

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"City Dweller" > wrote:

> Our airport, Caldwell (CDW), has two runways. Runways 22 and 27 are crossed
> almost at the approach edge of Rwy 22.
>
> The other day, I was landing on 22, and on a very short final (no more than
> 100 ft to the numbers and a crossing runway) I heard the controller say
>
> " Cessna 123, runway 27, cleared for take-off"

Assuming they are still running things the same way as they used to when I
was a CDW, they run arrivals and closed traffic on 22 and departures on 27
when it's busy. It takes a good controller to slot the departures through
the gaps in the arrivals to keep things moving smoothly.

> which would mean I was about to be rammed from the left by a departing
> Cessna. So I keyed the mike and uttered something in feeble protest.

If you were doing 60 kts (100 ft/s) on final and were 100 feet from the
threshold, you would be through the intersection in about 3 seconds. The
Cessna on 27 probably hadn't even released his brakes by the time you were
past the intersection. You were probably through the intersection before
you finished your radio transmission.

> I did apologize as I don't generally believe in arguing with the ATC.
> However I thought that a position & hold instruction to that Cessna would be
> more appropriate in that particular situation.

Probably by the time the guy was in position, the gap the controller was
trying to get him to hit would be gone.

[Dave Stadt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
>> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
>> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
>
> Oh man, that is really going to screw up departures at AirVenture!

They get special rules written specifically for the event. Planes two wide
and three deep in position and hold is certainly unique,

[Ben Hallert]

Reminds me of a flight I was on last year. I tuned to Camarillo tower
to listen in even though I was a couple thousand feet above his
airspace and I heard this exchange:

PLANE: Camarillo Tower, Cessna 123 at runway... 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: (pause, teeth gnashing sounds inserted by my imagination.)
Cessna 123, cleared for takeoff, runway two six.
PLANE: Cleared for takeoff, Cessna 123...........and I'm departing to
the right.

I gotta wonder how he didn't know what 'Position and hold' meant. If he
didn't have his instructor onboard, he's soloing, and if he's soloing,
presumably he's learned all this stuff... right? And what if he's
already a pilot? Scary stuff.

Also, I was once given a P&H instruction at Santa Monica with a Hawker
jet on short final. I was in a Piper Cherokee with no rear window, and
I declined. Controller had me switch over to ground for a moment to
tell me about how they like to sequence 'em tight on busy days, but
it's my butt on the line, not his. It probably would have been fine 99
times out of 100 with the spacing, but what about that 1 time?

P&H should be replaced by a directive to pilots to plan for an
immediate departure upon receiving "clear for takeoff" instructions.
Stopping on the numbers then doing a checklist is just out. By the
time you're holding short, you should be ready for Lights, Camera,
Action the moment the tower tells you to.

IMHO.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL
http://hallert.net/cozy/

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:
..
>
> I've never felt worried about someone landing on me while I'm holding in
> position at a controlled airport, but perhaps the risk is more significant
> than I'm aware. Have many such collisions actually occurred?
>
You betcha. As a matter of fact, there IS NO POSITION AND HOLD AT
NIGHT as a result of one such crash.

We were position and holding at Dulles one day (daylight) when the
tower had to send a Gulfstream around because they realized we were
still waiting for clearance. We offered to get off (it wasn't
that close) but they declined.

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
>> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
>> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
>
> Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
> position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
> runway.
>
You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.
How does that solve position-and-hold issues?

[Roy Smith]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote:
> I gotta wonder how he didn't know what 'Position and hold' meant. If he
> didn't have his instructor onboard, he's soloing, and if he's soloing,
> presumably he's learned all this stuff... right?

In theory, yes. In practice, if a student is doing his primary training at
an uncontrolled field, it's likely he's not got much experience with
towers. While "position and hold" is probably something he's been taught,
there's a big difference between being taught something and knowing it.

Can you honestly say you've never been confused by something ATC said to
you?

It sounds like the poor pilot did the right thing -- ATC said something he
didn't understand, so he asked for clarification and didn't move until he
got it sorted out.

[Dave D]

What about at uncontrolled fields?
At Watsonville (WVI) , on weekends, pilots taxi right out after someone
touches down
calling position-and-hold. Have to, because there can be 4 in the pattern
and more calling in their arrival.
Plus, there is a line of planes behind you wanting to take off.
As a new pilot, that field scares me a little. It takes some balls to get in
and out of there.

Dave

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
>
> At my home base, which is a class C airport in Syracuse, NY, the
> elimination of this instruction could occur as soon as March 20th.
>
> From the wording of the email, apparently this has already happened at
> Philadelphia International and will probably sweep the country this
> spring.
> The triple runway incursion at LAX last week seems to have hastened this
> move.
>
> While the traffic at our airport is light to moderate, I am curious how
> this will impact airports like La Guardia or Boston Logan, two airports
> where the P&H instruction definitely speeds up departures.
>
> --
> Peter

[Doug]

I've always had a problem with pilots at non-towered airports self
announcing "position and hold on runway so-and-so". Just as soon get
rid of that one too.NOt possible to see landing traffic once you are
"position and hold".

[Bob Gardner]

No such thing as P&H at an uncontrolled airport. The practical effect might
be the same, but the phraseology is wrong.

Bob Gardner

"Dave D" > wrote in message
...
> What about at uncontrolled fields?
> At Watsonville (WVI) , on weekends, pilots taxi right out after someone
> touches down
> calling position-and-hold. Have to, because there can be 4 in the pattern
> and more calling in their arrival.
> Plus, there is a line of planes behind you wanting to take off.
> As a new pilot, that field scares me a little. It takes some balls to get
> in and out of there.
>
> Dave
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
>> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
>> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
>>
>> At my home base, which is a class C airport in Syracuse, NY, the
>> elimination of this instruction could occur as soon as March 20th.
>>
>> From the wording of the email, apparently this has already happened at
>> Philadelphia International and will probably sweep the country this
>> spring.
>> The triple runway incursion at LAX last week seems to have hastened this
>> move.
>>
>> While the traffic at our airport is light to moderate, I am curious how
>> this will impact airports like La Guardia or Boston Logan, two airports
>> where the P&H instruction definitely speeds up departures.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
>

[Judah]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
et:

> They get special rules written specifically for the event. Planes two
> wide and three deep in position and hold is certainly unique,


I've seen two deep at HPN, as recently as yesterday morning as a matter
of fact.

[BTIZ]

If I'm already on the runway with a P&H clearance, I already did the LCA.
BT

> P&H should be replaced by a directive to pilots to plan for an
> immediate departure upon receiving "clear for takeoff" instructions.
> Stopping on the numbers then doing a checklist is just out. By the
> time you're holding short, you should be ready for Lights, Camera,
> Action the moment the tower tells you to.
>
> IMHO.
>
> Ben Hallert
> PP-ASEL
> http://hallert.net/cozy/
>

[BTIZ]

The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic in the area please
advise".. now just were in the AIM is that?

So if the hap hazard pilot hears nothing? he assumes (there's that ugly word
again) that there is no one around but him? NOT !!!
BT

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've always had a problem with pilots at non-towered airports self
> announcing "position and hold on runway so-and-so". Just as soon get
> rid of that one too.NOt possible to see landing traffic once you are
> "position and hold".
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> No such thing as P&H at an uncontrolled airport. The practical effect might
> be the same, but the phraseology is wrong.

Right. At an uncontrolled airport, it's called, "What's the idiot doing
dawdling on the runway?"

[Jon Woellhaf]

"BTIZ" wrote
> The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic in the area please
> advise"..

Possible response: "I'm in the area but I can't hear you because I don't
have a radio."

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> I've never felt worried about someone landing on me while I'm holding in
>> position at a controlled airport, but perhaps the risk is more
>> significant than I'm aware. Have many such collisions actually occurred?
>>
> You betcha.

Not to dispute your remark, but is there an available source of information
as to how many such collisions there've been?

> As a matter of fact, there IS NO POSITION AND HOLD AT
> NIGHT as a result of one such crash.

Interesting. I didn't know position-and-hold wasn't allowed at night. That
makes sense though--not only is it more dangerous at night, but on average
it's also less useful, since airports tend to be less busy at night.

Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:1yMNf.250$ld2.146@fed1read11...
> The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic in the area please
> advise".. now just were in the AIM is that?
>
> So if the hap hazard pilot hears nothing? he assumes (there's that ugly
> word again) that there is no one around but him? NOT !!!

Why assume that that's what the pilot assumes? Maybe he's just being extra
safe by checking for traffic over the radio *in addition* to performing a
diligent visual scan.

As long as the pilot is self-announcing his arrival as the AIM recommends,
why shouldn't he ask any nearby pilots to reciprocate?

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
>>> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
>>> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller
>>> errors."
>>
>> Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
>> position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
>> runway.
>>
> You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.

A clearance to taxi to the active runway is implicitly a clearance to taxi
across any other runways that are in your path. As AOPA has pointed out, it
would be safer if you needed an explicit clearance to cross any runway,
whether or not it's active. Otherwise, a pilot who's disoriented (but
doesn't know it) may cross the active runway thinking it's an inactive one.

> How does that solve position-and-hold issues?

It doesn't. It mitigates incursion problems; that was the stated rationale
for the new position-and-hold policy.

--Gary

[Jay Somerset]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:32:40 -0500, Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
> >> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
> >> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
> >
> > Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
> > position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
> > runway.
> >
> You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.
> How does that solve position-and-hold issues?

Ron, This is not my understanding. Without an explicit "hold short", an
instruction to taxi to Runway XX implies permission to cross any other
runways that happen to be on the taxi route.

[Doug]

I don't have a problem with "any traffic in the area please advise".
Seems useful. Frequently when you enter the pattern and announce, you
get replies when it was silent before. Obviously pilots responding to
your call. But saying the above, just reinforces the request.

I've had several near misses, and it's always been in the traffic
pattern.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Somerset >" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:32:40 -0500, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.
>
> Ron, This is not my understanding. Without an explicit "hold short", an
> instruction to taxi to Runway XX implies permission to cross any other
> runways that happen to be on the taxi route.

Yup. AIM 4-3-18a5. Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.

--Gary

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jay Somerset >> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:32:40 -0500, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> > > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
> > >> class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
> > >> instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."
> > >
> > > Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
> > > position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
> > > runway.
> > >
> > You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.
> > How does that solve position-and-hold issues?
>
> Ron, This is not my understanding. Without an explicit "hold short", an
> instruction to taxi to Runway XX implies permission to cross any other
> runways that happen to be on the taxi route.

I vaguely remember something about a taxi clearance only including
permission to cross runways which are not "active". However, I just went
and looked it up in the AIM; Jay is absolutely correct:

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. In order to preclude misunderstandings in
radio communications, ATC will not use the word "cleared" in conjunction
with authorization for aircraft to taxi.

Where did my memory of "non-active runways" come from. Did it used to say
something different at one time? Did an alien implant the memory in my
brain for some nefarious purpose?

At HPN, due to the way the airport is set up, it's relatively rare to taxi
across a runway, but it seems to me that when I do have to cross 11-29, I'm
always given explicit crossing clearance. Is the tower just saying more
than they need to out of some local custom?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
> confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.

Screw that. If you're not sure, ask for confirmation.

[Gary Drescher]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
>> confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.
>
> Screw that. If you're not sure, ask for confirmation.

I agree. (Was just citing that to illustrate that confirmation isn't
required.)

--Gary

[BTIZ]

>
> Yup. AIM 4-3-18a5. Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
> confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.
>
> --Gary

I don't mind annoying Ground Control. I fly at the second busiest airport in
the state and it was 5th or 7th last year for runway incursions. We now have
those yellow flashy lights where the taxiway crosses the runway and those
big RED Rwy numbers painted on the taxiway at the hold short line.
BT

[BTIZ]

>
> Where did my memory of "non-active runways" come from. Did it used to say
> something different at one time? Did an alien implant the memory in my
> brain for some nefarious purpose?
>

It's always been that way that I can remember, (35yrs), but it is always a
fail safe to ask.
BT

[BTIZ]

so true... also, "my hands are so busy with stick and spoiler handle in the
pattern that I'm not going to drop everything just to answer you". Some
gliders have PTT switches. Most training gliders don't even have a radio and
work with hand held radio if any.

BT

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
...
> "BTIZ" wrote
>> The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic in the area please
>> advise"..
>
> Possible response: "I'm in the area but I can't hear you because I don't
> have a radio."
>

[Jim Macklin]

You can but a basic light-weight headset and PTT switch from
any pilot store (gliders don't need noise
protection/canceling headphones, but you should have it on
the mic). They can be connected to your hand-held just
fine.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:cSNNf.253$ld2.199@fed1read11...
| so true... also, "my hands are so busy with stick and
spoiler handle in the
| pattern that I'm not going to drop everything just to
answer you". Some
| gliders have PTT switches. Most training gliders don't
even have a radio and
| work with hand held radio if any.
|
| BT
|
| "Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "BTIZ" wrote
| >> The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic
in the area please
| >> advise"..
| >
| > Possible response: "I'm in the area but I can't hear you
because I don't
| > have a radio."
| >
|
|

[[email protected]]

> > The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic in the area please
> > advise"..
>
> Possible response: "I'm in the area but I can't hear you because I don't
> have a radio."

In that case the only solution is unrolling a large banner: "Then get
your ass out of the plane and buy one !"

They really ought to get rid of those grandfathering rules in the FAA;
just because a plane was safe in a 1960s flight environment does not
mean it's safe now without upgrades. </end rant>

[Jose]

> You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.

Well, sorta. A clearance to taxi TO an active runway is an =implicit=
clearance to taxi across any runways except that active runway.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

I like the TV news reporting that there is a power outage.
If your power is out, you know it and can't see the TV
anyway.

ATC to student pilot, "say position... sp "sitting down in
an airplane."
"Say intentions" "going to see my grandma"



> wrote in message
oups.com...
|> > The one I hate at uncontrolled airport is "any traffic
in the area please
| > > advise"..
| >
| > Possible response: "I'm in the area but I can't hear you
because I don't
| > have a radio."
|
| In that case the only solution is unrolling a large
banner: "Then get
| your ass out of the plane and buy one !"
|
| They really ought to get rid of those grandfathering rules
in the FAA;
| just because a plane was safe in a 1960s flight
environment does not
| mean it's safe now without upgrades. </end rant>
|

[Ron Lee]

"Dave D" > wrote:

>What about at uncontrolled fields?
>At Watsonville (WVI) , on weekends, pilots taxi right out after someone
>touches down
>calling position-and-hold. Have to, because there can be 4 in the pattern
>and more calling in their arrival.
>Plus, there is a line of planes behind you wanting to take off.
>As a new pilot, that field scares me a little. It takes some balls to get in
>and out of there.
>
>

P&H was never a wise thing to me. If you need that at an uncontrolled
field then ask someone on final to extend a few seconds. I have no
desire to P&H at an uncontrolled field and taking off from the hold
short area only adds a few seconds. Well worth it to ensure that I
can be aware of traffic on final or very close in base.

Ron Lee

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've always had a problem with pilots at non-towered airports self
> announcing "position and hold on runway so-and-so". Just as soon get
> rid of that one too.NOt possible to see landing traffic once you are
> "position and hold".

And they seem to be 172 drivers that do 20 minute run ups sitting on the
runway.

[Dave Stadt]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> et:
>
>> They get special rules written specifically for the event. Planes two
>> wide and three deep in position and hold is certainly unique,
>
>
> I've seen two deep at HPN, as recently as yesterday morning as a matter
> of fact.

Two does not equal six.

[Peter R.]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> Its alive and well in Sacramento. However, our position and hold point
> is before the touchdown threshold so someone would have to land short
> to land on top of you.

From the explanation I read, Sacramento's P&H won't be there by summer's
end.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

Gary Drescher > wrote:

> I've never felt worried about someone landing on me while I'm holding in
> position at a controlled airport, but perhaps the risk is more significant
> than I'm aware. Have many such collisions actually occurred?

I never have either. The controllers at Syracuse would always tell me of
the inbound aircraft's position ("Bonanza XXX, position and hold, regional
jet 5 miles out") and tell the inbound aircraft about my aircraft entering
the runway for a P&H ("American Eagle XXX, cleared to land rwy 28, Bonanza
going into position now, will be departing before you arrive").

In these examples it is obvious that the controller is completely on top of
the work load, unlike a few of the recent incidents that led to this
decision by the FAA.

In the tight P&Hs (an aircraft on a three mile final) I do always think of
the scenario of how all involved would handle my aborted takeoff, should it
be needed.

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
> position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
> runway.
>

What's not explicit about it now?

[Jose]

> What's not explicit about it now?

All of it. It is =implicit= in the clearance to taxi to the active
runway. It is explicit when it is stated, for exam "taxi to runway 32,
cross runway 25 at alpha". It is =implicit= (not explicit) when the
clearance is merely "taxi to runway 32", and it so happens that runway
25 is in the way.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> A clearance to taxi to the active runway is implicitly a clearance to taxi
> across any other runways that are in your path.
>

What's implicit about it? If you're cleared to taxi to runway XX and
runways YY and ZZ are between you and runway XX then are you not explicitly
cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ? How else could you comply with the
clearance to taxi to runway XX?


>
> As AOPA has pointed out,
> it would be safer if you needed an explicit clearance to cross any runway,
> whether or not it's active. Otherwise, a pilot who's disoriented (but
> doesn't know it) may cross the active runway thinking it's an inactive
> one.
>

How is that safer? A clearance to "taxi to" the runway assigned to the
aircraft is a clearance to cross ALL other runways that intersect the taxi
route to that assigned takeoff runway, active or inactive.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Reminds me of a flight I was on last year. I tuned to Camarillo tower
> to listen in even though I was a couple thousand feet above his
> airspace and I heard this exchange:
>
> PLANE: Camarillo Tower, Cessna 123 at runway... 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: (pause, teeth gnashing sounds inserted by my imagination.)
> Cessna 123, cleared for takeoff, runway two six.
> PLANE: Cleared for takeoff, Cessna 123...........and I'm departing to
> the right.
>
> I gotta wonder how he didn't know what 'Position and hold' meant. If he
> didn't have his instructor onboard, he's soloing, and if he's soloing,
> presumably he's learned all this stuff... right? And what if he's
> already a pilot? Scary stuff.
>

A few years ago the phraseology was changed from "taxi into position and
hold" to just "position and hold". A bad idea, in my opinion. Some pilots
apparently confuse "position and hold" with "hold your position".


>
> Also, I was once given a P&H instruction at Santa Monica with a Hawker
> jet on short final. I was in a Piper Cherokee with no rear window, and
> I declined. Controller had me switch over to ground for a moment to
> tell me about how they like to sequence 'em tight on busy days, but
> it's my butt on the line, not his. It probably would have been fine 99
> times out of 100 with the spacing, but what about that 1 time?
>

If you're uncomfortable using procedures commonly used at controlled fields
it would be best for everyone if you avoided controlled fields.


>
> P&H should be replaced by a directive to pilots to plan for an
> immediate departure upon receiving "clear for takeoff" instructions.
> Stopping on the numbers then doing a checklist is just out. By the
> time you're holding short, you should be ready for Lights, Camera,
> Action the moment the tower tells you to.
>

If you haven't done those things already you're not ready for takeoff.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> P&H was never a wise thing to me. If you need that at an uncontrolled
> field then ask someone on final to extend a few seconds. I have no
> desire to P&H at an uncontrolled field and taking off from the hold
> short area only adds a few seconds. Well worth it to ensure that I
> can be aware of traffic on final or very close in base.
>

Extend on final? How do you do that? At times I've found myself in a
crowded pattern with aircraft lined up for departure I've announced I was
extending my downwind to allow for departures.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> In that case the only solution is unrolling a large banner: "Then get
> your ass out of the plane and buy one !"
>

Right. Many pilots toady cannot "see" an airplane if it doesn't have a
radio.


>
> They really ought to get rid of those grandfathering rules in the FAA;
> just because a plane was safe in a 1960s flight environment does not
> mean it's safe now without upgrades. </end rant>
>

It's just as safe now as it was in the '60s where conditions are the same
now as they were then. If you want radios required at your field start a
campaign for a control tower.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> A clearance to taxi to the active runway is implicitly a clearance to
>> taxi
>> across any other runways that are in your path.
>
> What's implicit about it? If you're cleared to taxi to runway XX and
> runways YY and ZZ are between you and runway XX then are you not
> explicitly cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ?

No, you're implicitly cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ.

> How else could you comply with the clearance to taxi to runway XX?

No other way. That's why the clearance to cross YY and ZZ is implicit in the
clearance to taxi to XX. But in order to be explicit, crossing YY and ZZ
would have to be *mentioned* in the clearance too. That's the difference
between being implicit and being explicit.

>> As AOPA has pointed out,
>> it would be safer if you needed an explicit clearance to cross any
>> runway,
>> whether or not it's active. Otherwise, a pilot who's disoriented (but
>> doesn't know it) may cross the active runway thinking it's an inactive
>> one.
>
> How is that safer? A clearance to "taxi to" the runway assigned to the
> aircraft is a clearance to cross ALL other runways that intersect the taxi
> route to that assigned takeoff runway, active or inactive.

Here's how requiring runway-crossing clearances to always be explicit would
be safer safer. Suppose a pilot is in a situation where it is *not*
necessary to cross any runway in order to taxi for takeoff. If the pilot is
lost (but doesn't know it), he may mistakenly *think* he needs to cross a
runway and may then do so unexpectedly, possibly conflicting with other
traffic. (I've actually witnessed that happening.)

If runway crossings always required an explicit clearance, the pilot who
hadn't received such a clearance would thereby know he shouldn't be crossing
any runways, regardless of where he thinks he is or thinks he's going.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> I never have either. The controllers at Syracuse would always tell me of
> the inbound aircraft's position ("Bonanza XXX, position and hold, regional
> jet 5 miles out") and tell the inbound aircraft about my aircraft entering
> the runway for a P&H ("American Eagle XXX, cleared to land rwy 28, Bonanza
> going into position now, will be departing before you arrive").
>
> In these examples it is obvious that the controller is completely on top
> of the work load, unlike a few of the recent incidents that led to this
> decision by the FAA.
>

I never liked that procedure. If some action must be taken before the
arriving aircraft can land safely I don't issue a landing clearance. I tell
the arrival there's an airplane in position that will be departing shortly.
After I clear the departure for takeoff I clear the arrival to land. That
way if I haven't been able to clear the departure for takeoff for some
reason the arrival either goes around or lands without a clearance.

[Jose]

> What's implicit about it?

everything.

> If you're cleared to taxi to runway XX and
> runways YY and ZZ are between you and runway XX then are you not explicitly
> cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ?

No.

> How else could you comply with the
> clearance to taxi to runway XX?

That is the essence of an implicit clearance. "How else could you do it?"

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A clearance to taxi to the active runway is implicitly a clearance to taxi
> > across any other runways that are in your path.
>
> What's implicit about it? If you're cleared to taxi to runway XX and
> runways YY and ZZ are between you and runway XX then are you not explicitly
> cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ? How else could you comply with the
> clearance to taxi to runway XX?

No; in fact that's a poster-child for what "implicit" means. Nowhere
in that clearance are runways YY or ZZ even mentioned. It is
*implied* that you may cross them, since they're on the way, but it's
not *explicitly* stated.

> > As AOPA has pointed out,
> > it would be safer if you needed an explicit clearance to cross any runway,
> > whether or not it's active. Otherwise, a pilot who's disoriented (but
> > doesn't know it) may cross the active runway thinking it's an inactive
> > one.
>
> How is that safer? A clearance to "taxi to" the runway assigned to the
> aircraft is a clearance to cross ALL other runways that intersect the taxi
> route to that assigned takeoff runway, active or inactive.

One way: I hear it's pretty easy to get lost on a big, unfamiliar
airport. So, if you *think* you're on the way to the runway you're
cleared to, and you come to another runway you need to cross, you'll
assume you're implicitly cleared to cross it. But if you are in fact
lost, and this runway *isn't* on the way to the one you're cleared to,
then you aren't actually cleared to cross it. Oops. If the
clearance had been explicit, you'd have a chance at noticing that the
runway in your way wasn't one of the ones you were *explicitly*
cleared to cross.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...] That's the difference between being implicit and being explicit.

I sense a bout of pig wrestling approaching...

:)

[Peter R.]

A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> Have a link to the source for this, and which airports in
> Sacramento?

It seems you missed the opening post of this thread.

--
Peter

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>[...] That's the difference between being implicit and being explicit.
>
>
> I sense a bout of pig wrestling approaching...
>
> :)
>
>

Peter! If you get a moment, please check the RAS newsgroup and a message
I left for you. As stated, I've been away from the real McCoy and the
sims too but hey, after I spied a few known monikers in both groups,
it's always helpful to get some input which can save much vexation. Real
McCoy stuff .... or screen virtual versions therein.

TIA!

Doc Tony

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter R. > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:
>
>> Have a link to the source for this, and which airports in
>> Sacramento?
>
> It seems you missed the opening post of this thread.

Nope, hadn't. OP mentioned SYR, whereas the post I referenced
said it was going to go away in Sacramento. I'm wondering what airports
in Sacramento, as there has been no-one mentioning anything about it at
Executive, Mather, or the school at Rancho Murieta.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFECNRXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlYGAJ4ymJmAc1gnbliqN7qhVE eQOpUuxgCggmmA
2XFrvEXO1z0Z4ExzXdt59z8=
=fmyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Peter R.]

A Guy Called Tyketto > wrote:

> Nope, hadn't. OP mentioned SYR, whereas the post I referenced
> said it was going to go away in Sacramento. I'm wondering what airports
> in Sacramento, as there has been no-one mentioning anything about it at
> Executive, Mather, or the school at Rancho Murieta.

I was the OP, Brad. Again, the source of this was an email I received
from my FBO at the class C airport, and this email came on the heels of a
meeting with local ATC.

Local ATC presented this issue to our FBO mgmt as P&H is going away at ALL
towered airports US-wide sometime this year due to the fact that the FAA
believes the risks of a runway incursions is not worth the time saved.

Obviously this is not "directly from the horse's mouth," so take it as you
may. I suggest watching your AOPA and Avweb email newsletters for more
information, since something of this magnitude would be newsworthy.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> the risks of a runway incursions is not worth the time saved

The risks "ARE" not worth the time saved. English really is my first
language, honest.

--
Peter

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> P&H was never a wise thing to me. If you need that at an uncontrolled
>> field then ask someone on final to extend a few seconds. I have no
>> desire to P&H at an uncontrolled field and taking off from the hold
>> short area only adds a few seconds. Well worth it to ensure that I
>> can be aware of traffic on final or very close in base.
>>
>
>Extend on final? How do you do that? At times I've found myself in a
>crowded pattern with aircraft lined up for departure I've announced I was
>extending my downwind to allow for departures.
>
Downwind is what I meant. Poor proofreading on that one.

Ron Lee

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:35:44 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I never have either. The controllers at Syracuse would always tell me of
>> the inbound aircraft's position ("Bonanza XXX, position and hold, regional
>> jet 5 miles out") and tell the inbound aircraft about my aircraft entering
>> the runway for a P&H ("American Eagle XXX, cleared to land rwy 28, Bonanza
>> going into position now, will be departing before you arrive").
>>
>> In these examples it is obvious that the controller is completely on top
>> of the work load, unlike a few of the recent incidents that led to this
>> decision by the FAA.
>>
>
>I never liked that procedure. If some action must be taken before the
>arriving aircraft can land safely I don't issue a landing clearance. I tell
>the arrival there's an airplane in position that will be departing shortly.
>After I clear the departure for takeoff I clear the arrival to land. That
>way if I haven't been able to clear the departure for takeoff for some
>reason the arrival either goes around or lands without a clearance.
>

That's an intelligent approach to the issue. I just wish it more generally
followed.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Judah]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:PMPNf.36681$Jd.756
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
>> et:
>>
>>> They get special rules written specifically for the event. Planes two
>>> wide and three deep in position and hold is certainly unique,
>>
>>
>> I've seen two deep at HPN, as recently as yesterday morning as a matter
>> of fact.
>
> Two does not equal six.
>
>

Agreed. I was surprised at even 2 deep is all...

[Travis Marlatte]

If I am aware of potential conflicts, I will counteract the implied
clearances by making them explicit.

If there are crossing runways active, I will sometimes make those crossings
explicit. Tower: "3094P, taxi to runway 16." Me: "Taxi to runway 16,
crossing 24, 3094P"

Same for taxiways. At my home airport, there are two ways out of the parking
area. One of them is the best way to bring planes into the terminal area.
But, I am parked closer to that taxiway. I don't go out that way if I know
that there are planes coming in. Most of the other planes use the other exit
because it is more on the way toward the main part of the airport. Sometimes
the tower adds a specific taxiway in the clearance but often not. To avoid a
mistaken assumption on the tower's part, I will make it explicit so that
they have a chance to stop me, if they want. Tower: "3094P, taxi to runway
16." Me: "Taxi to runway 16 via Alpha, 3094P."

Once, they responded with a give way request, Tower: "Alpha's fine. Just
give way to the Hawker that's doing a 180 in the runup pad and will be
coming in to the ramp." Another time, they ask that I go out the other way,
Tower: "Can you use Bravo? I've got a fuel truck coming across in a few
minutes." Me: "3094P will use Bravo to runway 16."

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> A clearance to taxi to the active runway is implicitly a clearance to
>>> taxi
>>> across any other runways that are in your path.
>>
>> What's implicit about it? If you're cleared to taxi to runway XX and
>> runways YY and ZZ are between you and runway XX then are you not
>> explicitly cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ?
>
> No, you're implicitly cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ.
>
>> How else could you comply with the clearance to taxi to runway XX?
>
> No other way. That's why the clearance to cross YY and ZZ is implicit in
> the clearance to taxi to XX. But in order to be explicit, crossing YY and
> ZZ would have to be *mentioned* in the clearance too. That's the
> difference between being implicit and being explicit.
>
>>> As AOPA has pointed out,
>>> it would be safer if you needed an explicit clearance to cross any
>>> runway,
>>> whether or not it's active. Otherwise, a pilot who's disoriented (but
>>> doesn't know it) may cross the active runway thinking it's an inactive
>>> one.
>>
>> How is that safer? A clearance to "taxi to" the runway assigned to the
>> aircraft is a clearance to cross ALL other runways that intersect the
>> taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway, active or inactive.
>
> Here's how requiring runway-crossing clearances to always be explicit
> would be safer safer. Suppose a pilot is in a situation where it is *not*
> necessary to cross any runway in order to taxi for takeoff. If the pilot
> is lost (but doesn't know it), he may mistakenly *think* he needs to cross
> a runway and may then do so unexpectedly, possibly conflicting with other
> traffic. (I've actually witnessed that happening.)
>
> If runway crossings always required an explicit clearance, the pilot who
> hadn't received such a clearance would thereby know he shouldn't be
> crossing any runways, regardless of where he thinks he is or thinks he's
> going.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Travis Marlatte]

Why does it take time to phase out? I would imagine that the local tower is
able to decide on it's own and immediately stop offering P&H clearances.

Why would you want to do a P&H at an uncontrolled airport? I just sit at the
line and time my roll so that by the time I'm on the runway and lined up
(still rolling) the other plane is clear. Just continue with the takeoff.

How many actually run through a checklist after lining up on the runway? By
the time I'm on the active, I want to be ready to fly, eyes out the window.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave D" > wrote:
>
>>What about at uncontrolled fields?
>>At Watsonville (WVI) , on weekends, pilots taxi right out after someone
>>touches down
>>calling position-and-hold. Have to, because there can be 4 in the pattern
>>and more calling in their arrival.
>>Plus, there is a line of planes behind you wanting to take off.
>>As a new pilot, that field scares me a little. It takes some balls to get
>>in
>>and out of there.
>>
>>
>
> P&H was never a wise thing to me. If you need that at an uncontrolled
> field then ask someone on final to extend a few seconds. I have no
> desire to P&H at an uncontrolled field and taking off from the hold
> short area only adds a few seconds. Well worth it to ensure that I
> can be aware of traffic on final or very close in base.
>
> Ron Lee

[Ben Hallert]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>If you're uncomfortable using procedures commonly used at controlled fields
>it would be best for everyone if you avoided controlled fields.

I'm very comfortable using procedures at controlled fields. In fact, I
did all of my primary instruction at Santa Monica. As pilot in
command, I made a decision to decline a position and hold because I
felt the landing traffic on final was too close.

You aren't suggesting that I defer my judgement as pilot to the
controller when I feel there's a safety issue, are you?

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:


> You betcha. As a matter of fact, there IS NO POSITION AND HOLD AT
> NIGHT as a result of one such crash.

You're partially right. There's no position and hold at an intersection
at night. This was because of the crash in LA where a 737 ran over a
Metroliner a few thousand feet down the runway.

[Newps]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


>
> Peter R. > wrote:
>
>>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Its alive and well in Sacramento. However, our position and hold point
>>>is before the touchdown threshold so someone would have to land short
>>>to land on top of you.
>>
>>From the explanation I read, Sacramento's P&H won't be there by summer's
>>end.
>>
>
>
> Have a link to the source for this, and which airports in
> Sacramento?

The new rules about P&H start officially in a few weeks. Some regions
and facilities may start them immediatley at their discretion. The new
rules will make it so hard to comply with that most facilities will just
do away with it completely, just like land and hold short.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:


>
> Local ATC presented this issue to our FBO mgmt as P&H is going away at ALL
> towered airports US-wide sometime this year due to the fact that the FAA
> believes the risks of a runway incursions is not worth the time saved.

You are correct, that is exactly what happened. Due to another near
miss in LA two weeks ago the vice president of terminal operations in
Washington DC sent out faxes to all towers stating the new rules.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Newps > wrote:
>
> The new rules about P&H start officially in a few weeks. Some regions
> and facilities may start them immediatley at their discretion. The new
> rules will make it so hard to comply with that most facilities will just
> do away with it completely, just like land and hold short.

IIRC (and it's been a while since I've flown into there), KBUR
is still using LAHSO. Boston is DEFINITELY still using LAHSO. When has
this changed?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEDJIYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAo/bAJ9J3ysNK9tpfezLSUQC2WM8ioHDjACcDwWb
0D62SAO2y3ucPWnd5mnChxA=
=3Z0q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> You are correct, that is exactly what happened. Due to another near
> miss in LA two weeks ago the vice president of terminal operations in
> Washington DC sent out faxes to all towers stating the new rules.

Thanks, Newps. Today, Avweb's AvFlash contained a brief article
mentioning this as well. It appears the news is spreading:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/588-full.html#191713



--
Peter

[Newps]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


>
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>The new rules about P&H start officially in a few weeks. Some regions
>>and facilities may start them immediatley at their discretion. The new
>>rules will make it so hard to comply with that most facilities will just
>>do away with it completely, just like land and hold short.
>
>
> IIRC (and it's been a while since I've flown into there), KBUR
> is still using LAHSO. Boston is DEFINITELY still using LAHSO. When has
> this changed?

LAHSO changed a long time ago. In order to use it the airport must get
involved. They have to paint stripes, install special lights if you
want to do LAHSO at night, etc. Most airports said no way so away it went.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Newps > wrote:
>
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>
>> IIRC (and it's been a while since I've flown into there), KBUR
>> is still using LAHSO. Boston is DEFINITELY still using LAHSO. When has
>> this changed?
>
> LAHSO changed a long time ago. In order to use it the airport must get
> involved. They have to paint stripes, install special lights if you
> want to do LAHSO at night, etc. Most airports said no way so away it went.

Interesting. Boston definitely uses LAHSO when runways 22/27
are in use, so I wonder if these are airport dependent, and not done
across the board.

Back to the subject, how would the P&H change be reflected in
the .65? Would it be a quick amendment to it, or would it transition
with the .65S?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEDNEEyBkZmuMZ8L8RAmQXAJ0ZGw5znaz7BJkQJH641o T9cjvtzgCg5LBu
BIacMl8ZiD8wV8kLSTWBhmE=
=P+Ae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[john smith]

Here is a forward of an email I received...

One of our subscribers posed the question to me, "Are there any
exceptions?"

I received our CMH Tower briefing on this issue yesterday.
Basically, beginning on March 20th, we will still be able to use this
TIPH procedure at Port Columbus, as long as ALL FOUR POSITIONS
(Clearance Delivery, Ground Control, Local Control, & Cab Supervisor)
are properly staffed. During the time any of those positions are
combined, we will have to abstain from using TIPH.

TIPH is a procedure that allows us to run traffic very efficiently.
For instance, commonly we have jet aircraft landing on the same
runway at CMH, spaced at 5 mile intervals. When the arrival passes
the end of the runway, we put a departure in position on the runway,
as we await the aircraft that just landed, to exit. TIPH is sort of
like having a gun aimed, cocked, and ready to fire.

Once the arrival clears the runway, we clear that departure for
takeoff. Typically, by that time, that next arrival is approximately
on a 2-mile final. That is as close as we like, because we must
ensure that we have a minimum of 6,000 ft runway separation between
that departure and that arrival.

Without TIPH, we will have to wait for the 1st arrival to be exiting
the runway before we can even allow the departure to taxi onto the
runway for takeoff. Without the ability to be "aimed, cocked, and
ready," the increased time needed for that departure to enter the
runway will most certainly affect the efficiency of our operation.

Why did this come about? GENOT 6/15 states "TIPH OPERATIONAL ERRORS
CONTINUE TO OCCUR. WE REVIEWED THESE EVENTS AND DETERMINED THAT
CHANGES TO FAAO 7210.3 ARE NEEDED TO MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT RISK
FACTORS THAT COMMONLY OCCURED (sic) IN THESE EVENTS."

Obviously, there have been incidents wherein the controller has been
distracted from his/her primary task, and such distractions have
resulted in unsafe situations. GENOT 6/15 is an effort to be certain
that isn't allowed to happen in the future.

The prevention of runway incursions has always been high on the list
of the NTSB's "MOST WANTED Transportation Safety Improvements" in
aviation...

http://ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm

Therefore, at CMH, if you hear us using TIPH after 3/20, you'll know
that there are at least 3 controllers and 1 supervisor up there in
the cab.

Tom Lusch
CMH Air Traffic Controller
Aviation Safety Counselor

[Peter R.]

john smith > wrote:

> Therefore, at CMH, if you hear us using TIPH after 3/20, you'll know
> that there are at least 3 controllers and 1 supervisor up there in
> the cab.

Interesting twist to this. Obviously airports such as LAX or Boston have
those positions staffed individually most of the day, yet I got the
impression from the various news reports that they are the airports
directly in the crosshairs of this latest change.

Perhaps your airport was able to successfully file some type of waiver?

--
Peter

[Newps]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

> Interesting. Boston definitely uses LAHSO when runways 22/27
> are in use, so I wonder if these are airport dependent, and not done
> across the board.

Right, that means that the owners of the Boston airport saw a need for
LAHSO so they made the necessary modifications to the airport so the
controllers could keep using that procedure.

>
> Back to the subject, how would the P&H change be reflected in
> the .65? Would it be a quick amendment to it, or would it transition
> with the .65S?

Every facility will get a change to put into their current .65 and it
will be in the next change. The changes to the current .65 are always a
different color so when you pick the book up you can see the myriad
changes that have happened since the last edition.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Every facility will get a change to put into their current .65 and it will
> be in the next change. The changes to the current .65 are always a
> different color so when you pick the book up you can see the myriad
> changes that have happened since the last edition.
>

All the changes I've seen have always been the same color, black.

[Roy Smith]

There was a thread just a week or two ago about "position and hold" at
CDW. Caldwell is a smallish but very busy towered field where almost
all the traffic is trainers in the pattern, coming and going to the
practice area, or doing practice instrument approaches.

The usual deal is closed traffic and arrivals on 4 or 22, and
departures off 27. The put you in position on 27, engineer a gap in
the pattern, and shoot you out through that gap. There's virtually
never any arrivals on 27. In a situation like that, I can't see how
position and hold on 27 could possibly be a bad thing.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:
> There was a thread just a week or two ago about "position and hold" at
> CDW. Caldwell is a smallish but very busy towered field where almost
> all the traffic is trainers in the pattern, coming and going to the
> practice area, or doing practice instrument approaches.
>
> The usual deal is closed traffic and arrivals on 4 or 22, and
> departures off 27. The put you in position on 27, engineer a gap in
> the pattern, and shoot you out through that gap. There's virtually
> never any arrivals on 27. In a situation like that, I can't see how
> position and hold on 27 could possibly be a bad thing.

It's the FAA squashing ants with a sledgehammer again.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:


>
> Interesting twist to this. Obviously airports such as LAX or Boston have
> those positions staffed individually most of the day, yet I got the
> impression from the various news reports that they are the airports
> directly in the crosshairs of this latest change.

It is agreed upon by all parties that it is the largest facilities that
have the problems.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> It is agreed upon by all parties that it is the largest facilities that
> have the problems.

Then why is it that the FAA is implementing this restriction across all
towered airports? Also, are there cases where airports can get a waiver
and continue P&Hs (such is apparently the case of the previous posters
airport)? I am curious why airports such as my class C wouldn't apply for
one, rather than choose to eliminate them per this requirement.


--
Peter

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>It is agreed upon by all parties that it is the largest facilities that
>>have the problems.
>
>
> Then why is it that the FAA is implementing this restriction across all
> towered airports?


This is actually the second time this has happened. A few months ago,
maybe six, we got a memo from the region asking us to justify why we
need position and hold. Presumably all facilities made their arguments.
They let us continue as normal. But the big facilities continue to
screw up so they are going to make it hard to use. The only problem is
the big facilities won't have to change much, if anything, to keep
qualified to use P&H. Therefore nothing will change.


Also, are there cases where airports can get a waiver
> and continue P&Hs (such is apparently the case of the previous posters
> airport)? I am curious why airports such as my class C wouldn't apply for
> one, rather than choose to eliminate them per this requirement.

A facility will be required to keep all positions in the tower open to
be able to use P&H. For example we have a position called clearance
delivery. It is always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H
allowed. That's why virtually no class C's will be using P&H anymore,
they don't keep all their positions open.

[Jose]

> For example we have a position called clearance delivery. It is always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H allowed.

What if the position is eliminated? Then you'd be legal for P&H, no?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> For example we have a position called clearance
> delivery. It is always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H
> allowed. That's why virtually no class C's will be using P&H anymore,
> they don't keep all their positions open.

That explains it. At Syracuse, the ground control position is almost
always combined with tower, even during their so called busy periods.

--
Peter

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> For example we have a position called clearance delivery. It is
>> always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H allowed.
>
>
> What if the position is eliminated?

Every tower has a clearance delivery position, some staff it, some don't.

[GeorgeC]

Last Friday afternoon (10 MAR 2006) I was holding short at 17L at PWA, while a
Hawker was on short final. As he touchdown, the tower told me to taxi into
position and hold. I guess we haven't got the word. It was Friday afternoon
and from the sound of things, I think he was the only one in the cab. The
bus-jet were coming home for the weekend and the recreation pilots were get out
of town for the weekend, and we were closed pattern on 17R, and a T-6 from Vance
AFB did a missed approach. The controller was doing a good job of handling the
traffic and TIPH just another tool to get everybody taken care of.

GeorgeC

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



NATCA is now getting involved, making the plot thicker...

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/12_10b/leadnews/191727-1.html

There has also been a GENOT sent out that specifies this. I'm
trying to find a link to it now.

But I guess for most airports that qualify for this, they will
be doing the paperwork for the waiver, and will be business as usual
for them.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEFhOiyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkExAKCYgXNc7gEx9quvzOf98B jmCYQVJgCgtp2f
MlAJJhP2pjh+9xanwjEMvTs=
=jK+Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Newps]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


>
> But I guess for most airports that qualify for this, they will
> be doing the paperwork for the waiver, and will be business as usual
> for them.
>

The new rules start Monday. All facilities were told to file for a
waiver, hows that for typical FAA dumbass? Here, we will be eliminating
the cab coordinator position thus obviating the need for a waiver.