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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:



Newps wrote:

The new rules about P&H start officially in a few weeks. Some regions
and facilities may start them immediatley at their discretion. The new
rules will make it so hard to comply with that most facilities will just
do away with it completely, just like land and hold short.


IIRC (and it's been a while since I've flown into there), KBUR
is still using LAHSO. Boston is DEFINITELY still using LAHSO. When has
this changed?

LAHSO changed a long time ago. In order to use it the airport must get
involved. They have to paint stripes, install special lights if you
want to do LAHSO at night, etc. Most airports said no way so away it went.

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

Newps wrote:

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

IIRC (and it's been a while since I've flown into there), KBUR
is still using LAHSO. Boston is DEFINITELY still using LAHSO. When has
this changed?

LAHSO changed a long time ago. In order to use it the airport must get
involved. They have to paint stripes, install special lights if you
want to do LAHSO at night, etc. Most airports said no way so away it went.

Interesting. Boston definitely uses LAHSO when runways 22/27
are in use, so I wonder if these are airport dependent, and not done
across the board.

Back to the subject, how would the P&H change be reflected in
the .65? Would it be a quick amendment to it, or would it transition
with the .65S?

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)

iD8DBQFEDNEEyBkZmuMZ8L8RAmQXAJ0ZGw5znaz7BJkQJH641o T9cjvtzgCg5LBu
BIacMl8ZiD8wV8kLSTWBhmE=
=P+Ae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Interesting. Boston definitely uses LAHSO when runways 22/27
are in use, so I wonder if these are airport dependent, and not done
across the board.

Right, that means that the owners of the Boston airport saw a need for
LAHSO so they made the necessary modifications to the airport so the
controllers could keep using that procedure.


Back to the subject, how would the P&H change be reflected in
the .65? Would it be a quick amendment to it, or would it transition
with the .65S?

Every facility will get a change to put into their current .65 and it
will be in the next change. The changes to the current .65 are always a
different color so when you pick the book up you can see the myriad
changes that have happened since the last edition.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Every facility will get a change to put into their current .65 and it will
be in the next change. The changes to the current .65 are always a
different color so when you pick the book up you can see the myriad
changes that have happened since the last edition.


All the changes I've seen have always been the same color, black.

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.