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

"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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
[...] That's the difference between being implicit and being explicit.

I sense a bout of pig wrestling approaching...

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

[...] That's the difference between being implicit and being explicit.


I sense a bout of pig wrestling approaching...





Peter! If you get a moment, please check the RAS newsgroup and a message
I left for you. As stated, I've been away from the real McCoy and the
sims too but hey, after I spied a few known monikers in both groups,
it's always helpful to get some input which can save much vexation. Real
McCoy stuff .... or screen virtual versions therein.

TIA!

Doc Tony

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