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

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

john smith wrote:

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.

Interesting twist to this. Obviously airports such as LAX or Boston have
those positions staffed individually most of the day, yet I got the
impression from the various news reports that they are the airports
directly in the crosshairs of this latest change.

Perhaps your airport was able to successfully file some type of waiver?

--
Peter

There was a thread just a week or two ago about "position and hold" at
CDW. Caldwell is a smallish but very busy towered field where almost
all the traffic is trainers in the pattern, coming and going to the
practice area, or doing practice instrument approaches.

The usual deal is closed traffic and arrivals on 4 or 22, and
departures off 27. The put you in position on 27, engineer a gap in
the pattern, and shoot you out through that gap. There's virtually
never any arrivals on 27. In a situation like that, I can't see how
position and hold on 27 could possibly be a bad thing.

Roy Smith wrote:
There was a thread just a week or two ago about "position and hold" at
CDW. Caldwell is a smallish but very busy towered field where almost
all the traffic is trainers in the pattern, coming and going to the
practice area, or doing practice instrument approaches.

The usual deal is closed traffic and arrivals on 4 or 22, and
departures off 27. The put you in position on 27, engineer a gap in
the pattern, and shoot you out through that gap. There's virtually
never any arrivals on 27. In a situation like that, I can't see how
position and hold on 27 could possibly be a bad thing.

It's the FAA squashing ants with a sledgehammer again.

Peter R. wrote:



Interesting twist to this. Obviously airports such as LAX or Boston have
those positions staffed individually most of the day, yet I got the
impression from the various news reports that they are the airports
directly in the crosshairs of this latest change.

It is agreed upon by all parties that it is the largest facilities that
have the problems.

Newps wrote:

It is agreed upon by all parties that it is the largest facilities that
have the problems.

Then why is it that the FAA is implementing this restriction across all
towered airports? Also, are there cases where airports can get a waiver
and continue P&Hs (such is apparently the case of the previous posters
airport)? I am curious why airports such as my class C wouldn't apply for
one, rather than choose to eliminate them per this requirement.


--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

Newps wrote:


It is agreed upon by all parties that it is the largest facilities that
have the problems.


Then why is it that the FAA is implementing this restriction across all
towered airports?


This is actually the second time this has happened. A few months ago,
maybe six, we got a memo from the region asking us to justify why we
need position and hold. Presumably all facilities made their arguments.
They let us continue as normal. But the big facilities continue to
screw up so they are going to make it hard to use. The only problem is
the big facilities won't have to change much, if anything, to keep
qualified to use P&H. Therefore nothing will change.


Also, are there cases where airports can get a waiver
and continue P&Hs (such is apparently the case of the previous posters
airport)? I am curious why airports such as my class C wouldn't apply for
one, rather than choose to eliminate them per this requirement.

A facility will be required to keep all positions in the tower open to
be able to use P&H. For example we have a position called clearance
delivery. It is always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H
allowed. That's why virtually no class C's will be using P&H anymore,
they don't keep all their positions open.

For example we have a position called clearance delivery. It is always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H allowed.

What if the position is eliminated? Then you'd be legal for P&H, no?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Newps wrote:

For example we have a position called clearance
delivery. It is always combined with ground control. Bingo, no P&H
allowed. That's why virtually no class C's will be using P&H anymore,
they don't keep all their positions open.

That explains it. At Syracuse, the ground control position is almost
always combined with tower, even during their so called busy periods.

--
Peter