"position & hold" going away

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

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

You're joking, aren't you?


No.

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

"Stefan" wrote in message
...

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".


That may be, but we're not talking about the phrase "hold position".

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

That may be, but we're not talking about the phrase "hold position".

It's inherent to confusions that there are two phrases involved, one you
did say and one you "weren't talking about", but the other party was
thinking to hear nevertheless.

Stefan

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".

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

"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 =----