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

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:32:40 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."

Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
runway.

You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.
How does that solve position-and-hold issues?

Ron, This is not my understanding. Without an explicit "hold short", an
instruction to taxi to Runway XX implies permission to cross any other
runways that happen to be on the taxi route.

"Jay Somerset " wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:32:40 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:
You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.

Ron, This is not my understanding. Without an explicit "hold short", an
instruction to taxi to Runway XX implies permission to cross any other
runways that happen to be on the taxi route.

Yup. AIM 4-3-18a5. Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.

--Gary

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:

Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.

Screw that. If you're not sure, ask for confirmation.

Yup. AIM 4-3-18a5. Ground control sometimes gets annoyed if you ask for
confirmation before crossing an inactive runway on your way to takeoff.

--Gary

I don't mind annoying Ground Control. I fly at the second busiest airport in
the state and it was 5th or 7th last year for runway incursions. We now have
those yellow flashy lights where the taxiway crosses the runway and those
big RED Rwy numbers painted on the taxiway at the hold short line.
BT

In article ,
Jay Somerset wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:32:40 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."

Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
runway.

You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.
How does that solve position-and-hold issues?

Ron, This is not my understanding. Without an explicit "hold short", an
instruction to taxi to Runway XX implies permission to cross any other
runways that happen to be on the taxi route.

I vaguely remember something about a taxi clearance only including
permission to cross runways which are not "active". However, I just went
and looked it up in the AIM; Jay is absolutely correct:

4-3-18. Taxiing
5. When ATC clears an aircraft to "taxi to" an assigned takeoff runway, the
absence of holding instructions authorizes the aircraft to "cross" all
runways which the taxi route intersects except the assigned takeoff runway.
It does not include authorization to "taxi onto" or "cross" the assigned
takeoff runway at any point. In order to preclude misunderstandings in
radio communications, ATC will not use the word "cleared" in conjunction
with authorization for aircraft to taxi.

Where did my memory of "non-active runways" come from. Did it used to say
something different at one time? Did an alien implant the memory in my
brain for some nefarious purpose?

At HPN, due to the way the airport is set up, it's relatively rare to taxi
across a runway, but it seems to me that when I do have to cross 11-29, I'm
always given explicit crossing clearance. Is the tower just saying more
than they need to out of some local custom?

Where did my memory of "non-active runways" come from. Did it used to say
something different at one time? Did an alien implant the memory in my
brain for some nefarious purpose?


It's always been that way that I can remember, (35yrs), but it is always a
fail safe to ask.
BT

You've always needed an explicit clearance to taxi across runways.

Well, sorta. A clearance to taxi TO an active runway is an =implicit=
clearance to taxi across any runways except that active runway.

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

Hm, I bet a more effective anti-incursion strategy would be to keep using
position-and-hold but require an explicit clearance to taxi across any
runway.


What's not explicit about it now?

What's not explicit about it now?

All of it. It is =implicit= in the clearance to taxi to the active
runway. It is explicit when it is stated, for exam "taxi to runway 32,
cross runway 25 at alpha". It is =implicit= (not explicit) when the
clearance is merely "taxi to runway 32", and it so happens that runway
25 is in the way.

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

Our airport, Caldwell (CDW), has two runways. Runways 22 and 27 are crossed
almost at the approach edge of Rwy 22.

The other day, I was landing on 22, and on a very short final (no more than
100 ft to the numbers and a crossing runway) I heard the controller say

" Cessna 123, runway 27, cleared for take-off"

which would mean I was about to be rammed from the left by a departing
Cessna. So I keyed the mike and uttered something in feeble protest. The
controller said to me curtly: "This is called 'anticipated separation'. The
aircraft was not even on the runway yet!"

I did apologize as I don't generally believe in arguing with the ATC.
However I thought that a position & hold instruction to that Cessna would be
more appropriate in that particular situation.

-- City Dweller



"Peter R." wrote in message
...
I just received an email from my FBO, who received word from ATC at our
class C airport, that the FAA is phasing out the "position and hold"
instruction "to try to curb the runway incursions and controller errors."

At my home base, which is a class C airport in Syracuse, NY, the
elimination of this instruction could occur as soon as March 20th.

From the wording of the email, apparently this has already happened at
Philadelphia International and will probably sweep the country this
spring.
The triple runway incursion at LAX last week seems to have hastened this
move.

While the traffic at our airport is light to moderate, I am curious how
this will impact airports like La Guardia or Boston Logan, two airports
where the P&H instruction definitely speeds up departures.

--
Peter