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

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've always had a problem with pilots at non-towered airports self
announcing "position and hold on runway so-and-so". Just as soon get
rid of that one too.NOt possible to see landing traffic once you are
"position and hold".

And they seem to be 172 drivers that do 20 minute run ups sitting on the
runway.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Dave Stadt" wrote in
et:

They get special rules written specifically for the event. Planes two
wide and three deep in position and hold is certainly unique,


I've seen two deep at HPN, as recently as yesterday morning as a matter
of fact.

Two does not equal six.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Its alive and well in Sacramento. However, our position and hold point
is before the touchdown threshold so someone would have to land short
to land on top of you.

From the explanation I read, Sacramento's P&H won't be there by summer's
end.

--
Peter

Gary Drescher wrote:

I've never felt worried about someone landing on me while I'm holding in
position at a controlled airport, but perhaps the risk is more significant
than I'm aware. Have many such collisions actually occurred?

I never have either. The controllers at Syracuse would always tell me of
the inbound aircraft's position ("Bonanza XXX, position and hold, regional
jet 5 miles out") and tell the inbound aircraft about my aircraft entering
the runway for a P&H ("American Eagle XXX, cleared to land rwy 28, Bonanza
going into position now, will be departing before you arrive").

In these examples it is obvious that the controller is completely on top of
the work load, unlike a few of the recent incidents that led to this
decision by the FAA.

In the tight P&Hs (an aircraft on a three mile final) I do always think of
the scenario of how all involved would handle my aborted takeoff, should it
be needed.

--
Peter

"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.

"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?



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.

"Ben Hallert" wrote in message
ps.com...

Reminds me of a flight I was on last year. I tuned to Camarillo tower
to listen in even though I was a couple thousand feet above his
airspace and I heard this exchange:

PLANE: Camarillo Tower, Cessna 123 at runway... twenty six.
TOWER: Cessna 123, say your intentions.
PLANE: I'd like to take off.
TOWER: Cessna 123, position and hold, runway two six.
PLANE: Um, I'm at runway two six.
TOWER: Roger, position and hold on runway two six.
PLANE: Well, my position is runway two six, and I don't understand what
you mean.
TOWER: Confirm, Cessna 123, you're at runway two six and you're NOT on
the runway?
PLANE: Yeah, and I'm holding my position here.
TOWER: (pause, teeth gnashing sounds inserted by my imagination.)
Cessna 123, cleared for takeoff, runway two six.
PLANE: Cleared for takeoff, Cessna 123...........and I'm departing to
the right.

I gotta wonder how he didn't know what 'Position and hold' meant. If he
didn't have his instructor onboard, he's soloing, and if he's soloing,
presumably he's learned all this stuff... right? And what if he's
already a pilot? Scary stuff.


A few years ago the phraseology was changed from "taxi into position and
hold" to just "position and hold". A bad idea, in my opinion. Some pilots
apparently confuse "position and hold" with "hold your position".



Also, I was once given a P&H instruction at Santa Monica with a Hawker
jet on short final. I was in a Piper Cherokee with no rear window, and
I declined. Controller had me switch over to ground for a moment to
tell me about how they like to sequence 'em tight on busy days, but
it's my butt on the line, not his. It probably would have been fine 99
times out of 100 with the spacing, but what about that 1 time?


If you're uncomfortable using procedures commonly used at controlled fields
it would be best for everyone if you avoided controlled fields.



P&H should be replaced by a directive to pilots to plan for an
immediate departure upon receiving "clear for takeoff" instructions.
Stopping on the numbers then doing a checklist is just out. By the
time you're holding short, you should be ready for Lights, Camera,
Action the moment the tower tells you to.


If you haven't done those things already you're not ready for takeoff.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...

P&H was never a wise thing to me. If you need that at an uncontrolled
field then ask someone on final to extend a few seconds. I have no
desire to P&H at an uncontrolled field and taking off from the hold
short area only adds a few seconds. Well worth it to ensure that I
can be aware of traffic on final or very close in base.


Extend on final? How do you do that? At times I've found myself in a
crowded pattern with aircraft lined up for departure I've announced I was
extending my downwind to allow for departures.

wrote in message
oups.com...

In that case the only solution is unrolling a large banner: "Then get
your ass out of the plane and buy one !"


Right. Many pilots toady cannot "see" an airplane if it doesn't have a
radio.



They really ought to get rid of those grandfathering rules in the FAA;
just because a plane was safe in a 1960s flight environment does not
mean it's safe now without upgrades. /end rant


It's just as safe now as it was in the '60s where conditions are the same
now as they were then. If you want radios required at your field start a
campaign for a control tower.