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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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?

No, you're implicitly cleared to cross runways YY and ZZ.

How else could you comply with the clearance to taxi to runway XX?

No other way. That's why the clearance to cross YY and ZZ is implicit in the
clearance to taxi to XX. But in order to be explicit, crossing YY and ZZ
would have to be *mentioned* in the clearance too. That's the difference
between being implicit and being explicit.

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.

Here's how requiring runway-crossing clearances to always be explicit would
be safer safer. Suppose a pilot is in a situation where it is *not*
necessary to cross any runway in order to taxi for takeoff. If the pilot is
lost (but doesn't know it), he may mistakenly *think* he needs to cross a
runway and may then do so unexpectedly, possibly conflicting with other
traffic. (I've actually witnessed that happening.)

If runway crossings always required an explicit clearance, the pilot who
hadn't received such a clearance would thereby know he shouldn't be crossing
any runways, regardless of where he thinks he is or thinks he's going.

--Gary

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

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.


I never liked that procedure. If some action must be taken before the
arriving aircraft can land safely I don't issue a landing clearance. I tell
the arrival there's an airplane in position that will be departing shortly.
After I clear the departure for takeoff I clear the arrival to land. That
way if I haven't been able to clear the departure for takeoff for some
reason the arrival either goes around or lands without a clearance.

What's implicit about it?

everything.

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?

No.

How else could you comply with the
clearance to taxi to runway XX?

That is the essence of an implicit clearance. "How else could you do it?"

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

"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?

No; in fact that's a poster-child for what "implicit" means. Nowhere
in that clearance are runways YY or ZZ even mentioned. It is
*implied* that you may cross them, since they're on the way, but it's
not *explicitly* stated.

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.

One way: I hear it's pretty easy to get lost on a big, unfamiliar
airport. So, if you *think* you're on the way to the runway you're
cleared to, and you come to another runway you need to cross, you'll
assume you're implicitly cleared to cross it. But if you are in fact
lost, and this runway *isn't* on the way to the one you're cleared to,
then you aren't actually cleared to cross it. Oops. If the
clearance had been explicit, you'd have a chance at noticing that the
runway in your way wasn't one of the ones you were *explicitly*
cleared to cross.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
[...] That's the difference between being implicit and being explicit.

I sense a bout of pig wrestling approaching...

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

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

[...] That's the difference between being implicit and being explicit.


I sense a bout of pig wrestling approaching...





Peter! If you get a moment, please check the RAS newsgroup and a message
I left for you. As stated, I've been away from the real McCoy and the
sims too but hey, after I spied a few known monikers in both groups,
it's always helpful to get some input which can save much vexation. Real
McCoy stuff .... or screen virtual versions therein.

TIA!

Doc Tony

-----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