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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Have a link to the source for this, and which airports in
Sacramento?

It seems you missed the opening post of this thread.

--
Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter R. wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Have a link to the source for this, and which airports in
Sacramento?

It seems you missed the opening post of this thread.

Nope, hadn't. OP mentioned SYR, whereas the post I referenced
said it was going to go away in Sacramento. I'm wondering what airports
in Sacramento, as there has been no-one mentioning anything about it at
Executive, Mather, or the school at Rancho Murieta.

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)

iD8DBQFECNRXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlYGAJ4ymJmAc1gnbliqN7qhVE eQOpUuxgCggmmA
2XFrvEXO1z0Z4ExzXdt59z8=
=fmyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Nope, hadn't. OP mentioned SYR, whereas the post I referenced
said it was going to go away in Sacramento. I'm wondering what airports
in Sacramento, as there has been no-one mentioning anything about it at
Executive, Mather, or the school at Rancho Murieta.

I was the OP, Brad. Again, the source of this was an email I received
from my FBO at the class C airport, and this email came on the heels of a
meeting with local ATC.

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.

Obviously this is not "directly from the horse's mouth," so take it as you
may. I suggest watching your AOPA and Avweb email newsletters for more
information, since something of this magnitude would be newsworthy.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote:

the risks of a runway incursions is not worth the time saved

The risks "ARE" not worth the time saved. English really is my first
language, honest.

--
Peter

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.

Newps wrote:

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.

Thanks, Newps. Today, Avweb's AvFlash contained a brief article
mentioning this as well. It appears the news is spreading:

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#191713



--
Peter

Here is a forward of an email I received...

One of our subscribers posed the question to me, "Are there any
exceptions?"

I received our CMH Tower briefing on this issue yesterday.
Basically, beginning on March 20th, we will still be able to use this
TIPH procedure at Port Columbus, as long as ALL FOUR POSITIONS
(Clearance Delivery, Ground Control, Local Control, & Cab Supervisor)
are properly staffed. During the time any of those positions are
combined, we will have to abstain from using TIPH.

TIPH is a procedure that allows us to run traffic very efficiently.
For instance, commonly we have jet aircraft landing on the same
runway at CMH, spaced at 5 mile intervals. When the arrival passes
the end of the runway, we put a departure in position on the runway,
as we await the aircraft that just landed, to exit. TIPH is sort of
like having a gun aimed, cocked, and ready to fire.

Once the arrival clears the runway, we clear that departure for
takeoff. Typically, by that time, that next arrival is approximately
on a 2-mile final. That is as close as we like, because we must
ensure that we have a minimum of 6,000 ft runway separation between
that departure and that arrival.

Without TIPH, we will have to wait for the 1st arrival to be exiting
the runway before we can even allow the departure to taxi onto the
runway for takeoff. Without the ability to be "aimed, cocked, and
ready," the increased time needed for that departure to enter the
runway will most certainly affect the efficiency of our operation.

Why did this come about? GENOT 6/15 states "TIPH OPERATIONAL ERRORS
CONTINUE TO OCCUR. WE REVIEWED THESE EVENTS AND DETERMINED THAT
CHANGES TO FAAO 7210.3 ARE NEEDED TO MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT RISK
FACTORS THAT COMMONLY OCCURED (sic) IN THESE EVENTS."

Obviously, there have been incidents wherein the controller has been
distracted from his/her primary task, and such distractions have
resulted in unsafe situations. GENOT 6/15 is an effort to be certain
that isn't allowed to happen in the future.

The prevention of runway incursions has always been high on the list
of the NTSB's "MOST WANTED Transportation Safety Improvements" in
aviation...

http://ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm

Therefore, at CMH, if you hear us using TIPH after 3/20, you'll know
that there are at least 3 controllers and 1 supervisor up there in
the cab.

Tom Lusch
CMH Air Traffic Controller
Aviation Safety Counselor