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

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

"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? How else could you comply with the
clearance to taxi to runway XX?

No; in fact that's a poster-child for what "implicit" means. Nowhere
in that clearance are runways YY or ZZ even mentioned. It is
*implied* that you may cross them, since they're on the way, but it's
not *explicitly* stated.

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.

One way: I hear it's pretty easy to get lost on a big, unfamiliar
airport. So, if you *think* you're on the way to the runway you're
cleared to, and you come to another runway you need to cross, you'll
assume you're implicitly cleared to cross it. But if you are in fact
lost, and this runway *isn't* on the way to the one you're cleared to,
then you aren't actually cleared to cross it. Oops. If the
clearance had been explicit, you'd have a chance at noticing that the
runway in your way wasn't one of the ones you were *explicitly*
cleared to cross.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/