New Aviation Terminology

Nor did he wait on the runway for his IFR
clearance, he was issued the IFR clearance and still had to wait for the
runway to become available for his takeoff.


Ok, I thought he got his IFR clearance while in position... implying he was on
the runway without an IFR clearance at least for some point.

Jos

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

Ok, I thought he got his IFR clearance while in position... implying he
was on
the runway without an IFR clearance at least for some point.


He did get his IFR clearance while on the runway, but that did not delay his
departure. Being on the runway without an IFR clearance is not a problem.

Being on the runway without an IFR clearance is not a problem.

.... unless you can't take off without an IFR clearance, and there's incoming.
But I suppose the controller would take care of that when it happened.

It just seems that the end of the runway is a bad place to be unless you're
ready to go.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
... unless you can't take off without an IFR clearance, and there's
incoming.
But I suppose the controller would take care of that when it happened.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, sure. Who wants to be the hundredth?

It just seems that the end of the runway is a bad place to be unless
you're
ready to go.

It is. And no controller can make you sit there. They don't fly the plane.
You do.

Pete

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
Being on the runway without an IFR clearance is not a problem.

... unless you can't take off without an IFR clearance, and there's
incoming.
But I suppose the controller would take care of that when it happened.

It just seems that the end of the runway is a bad place to be unless
you're
ready to go.

Not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this. In Europe at least,
the rate-limiting step is often coordination with the facility that will
control after departure. The clearance is not issued until that has been
done, and the window that that facility wants to open up is usually quite
short. Hence it's not unusual at a quiet controlled airport to be given the
IFR clearance while lined up on the runway, and a take-off clearance
immediately afterwards. If the clearance were given at the hold, it could
take minutes to backtrack the runway and get airborne -- it's not unusual to
get such a clearance a couple of minutes before the end of a flow management
slot.

Julian Scarfe

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
Not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this.

Well, for one, because nearly all fatal collisions between transport
aircraft occurred on a runway.

[...] Hence it's not unusual at a quiet controlled airport to be given
the
IFR clearance while lined up on the runway, and a take-off clearance
immediately afterwards.

I don't think anyone stipulated the "quiet controlled airport".
"Controlled" is implied, of course. But this "quiet" was never stated. In
the US, "quiet controlled airport" is either an oxymoron by definition, or a
relative term applicable to airports where there's still a fair amount of
traffic.

If the clearance were given at the hold, it could
take minutes to backtrack the runway and get airborne -- it's not unusual
to
get such a clearance a couple of minutes before the end of a flow
management
slot.

Minutes? I've never seen an airport where an airplane would take more than
ten or fifteen seconds to get lined up and take off. Not saying they don't
exist, of course, but surely it makes more sense to think about the typical
case here when talking about general procedures.

Pete

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
Not sure why there's such a strong aversion to this.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Well, for one, because nearly all fatal collisions between transport
aircraft occurred on a runway.

That's fair enough. I think there have been at least two landing vs
position-and-hold collisions, though I don't think either of them involved
waiting for an IFR clearance -- but I take the point.

[...] Hence it's not unusual at a quiet controlled airport to be given
the
IFR clearance while lined up on the runway, and a take-off clearance
immediately afterwards.

I don't think anyone stipulated the "quiet controlled airport".
"Controlled" is implied, of course. But this "quiet" was never stated.
In
the US, "quiet controlled airport" is either an oxymoron by definition, or
a
relative term applicable to airports where there's still a fair amount of
traffic.

Well Tenerife was pretty quiet that day until the collision!

It's difficult to tell as I have limited experience of flying in the US, but
it didn't seem unusual for minutes to go by without the runway being in use.
My last flight in the US involved an unscheduled stop at PAE after a door
came open in flight. We landed on the runway and instead of asking us to
vacate we got to stop, fix the door and then backtrack on the runway to the
end. Does Paine Field count as quiet?

If the clearance were given at the hold, it could
take minutes to backtrack the runway and get airborne -- it's not
unusual
to get such a clearance a couple of minutes before the end of a flow
management slot.

Minutes? I've never seen an airport where an airplane would take more
than
ten or fifteen seconds to get lined up and take off. Not saying they
don't
exist, of course, but surely it makes more sense to think about the
typical
case here when talking about general procedures.

Again I can only think of specific cases -- I guess concrete is cheaper in
the US. :-) At my home base of Cambridge in the UK, the last paved taxiway
to/from the apron is about 2/3 of the way down the 6500 ft runway 05. Thus
the 747s that come in for maintenance end up taxying more than 4000 ft on
the runway, and they don't like doing that very quickly. It's more common
than not for them (and the rest of us for that matter) to get a clearance
while backtracking.

Julian Scarfe

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
It's difficult to tell as I have limited experience of flying in the US,
but
it didn't seem unusual for minutes to go by without the runway being in
use.
My last flight in the US involved an unscheduled stop at PAE after a door
came open in flight. We landed on the runway and instead of asking us to
vacate we got to stop, fix the door and then backtrack on the runway to
the
end. Does Paine Field count as quiet?

I'm based at Paine. It does have its quiet moments, but I wouldn't want to
sit on the runway for any extended period of time, not as a general rule.
You don't say what kind of airplane you were in, or what the nature of the
flight was. I assume that since you say you backtracked on the runway, the
airplane must've been pretty small. I personally would not have accepted
the offer to backtrack on the runway, not at Paine. Your experience is a
good example of a scenario that may or may not be entirely safe.

(That said, I'm a bit surprised you needed to backtrack on the runway
anyway. Assuming you landed on the long runway, there should have been
plenty of room for a stop-and-go. If you landed on one of the shorter ones,
the taxiway exits are close enough together that it's hardly a more
significant effort to taxi back on an actual taxiway. There's no
operational reason that justifies the reduction in safety to backtaxi on any
runway at Paine).

The bottom line IMHO is that as the pilot, it's hard to know for sure
whether current circumstances allow one to safely remain on the runway for
extended periods of time, and controllers are falliable. Aviation safety is
predicated on the idea that one makes every effort to avoid potentially
serious situations, even if those situations rarely result in a problem.

In any case, I would certainly never say that one should never wait on the
runway, but one ought to only do so when one has VERY good information with
respect to what aircraft are actually in the area, a reasonable idea of how
long the wait will be, and a good escape plan in case the wait goes longer
than expected. And one should do it only when there's a really good reason
for doing so (i.e. some benefit that justifies the risk).

Furthermore (and more relevant to your original comment) I can *easily* see
why there's such a strong aversion to this sort of thing. It's rarely an
operational necessity, and when it is, it should still only be undertaken
with the same (presumably high degree of) caution used in other areas of
flight. The aversion is quite understandable IMHO.

Pete