First NASA form filed

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

Bob Gardner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Gardner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

-- David Brooks

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

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

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

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


--ron

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

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


--ron


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

take care

Blll

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

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

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


--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 00:34:16 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

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

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

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

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

Paul

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 00:34:16 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

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

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


--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:29:09 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

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

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

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

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