"position & hold" going away

"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".

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

"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?

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

"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

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 =----

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."

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

You're joking, aren't you?


No.

"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.

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