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

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".

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?"

"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."

"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

"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

"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

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 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.

"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

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?