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

"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

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)

"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...

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

-----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-----