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

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

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.

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

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" 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

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.

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

"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.

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)

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