[David-aviator]

I was wondering why I got "taxi runway 26R via Echo" yesterday after years of "taxi runway 26R" which is clearly visible not far away. (had another geezer meeting at KSUS) AVweb Flash has a news item on the subject this morning.

It is a fact, latest statistics indicate there are far too many incidents and near incidents on the ground. The FAA is doing their part on clearing up this mess. We as pilots must do our part - know the procedures and if in doubt stop and ask. Do not taxi on to an active runway out of ignorance or lack of attention. If something does not look right or feel right, it probably isn't.

 

[hngrflyr]

Our local controllers here in Eugene also would like pilots to read back taxi instructions. This will add more difficulty to our ground control frequency since it is also used for clearance delivery.

I know some of our controllers. They say they will be making paper on pilot deviations, so if you don't understand just what they want, better ask for progressive instructions.

If the price of Avgas keeps going up, it may become a mute point.

 

[nucleus]

Read Backs Mandatory

We had a meeting at bzn last week with the controllers and an FAA guy who have a presentation on runway incursions. The head of the controllers said that they have to have a read back on all instructions, they don't have a choice in the matter.

He said the next thing is going to be that they are not going to be allowed to give more than one landing clearance at a time, which he stated that he thought was a step backwards. I tend to agree, it is going to create a lot more communication.

Hans

 

[RVG8tor]

One landing clearance at a time

We had a meeting at bzn last week with the controllers and an FAA guy who have a presentation on runway incursions. The head of the controllers said that they have to have a read back on all instructions, they don't have a choice in the matter.

He said the next thing is going to be that they are not going to be allowed to give more than one landing clearance at a time, which he stated that he thought was a step backwards. I tend to agree, it is going to create a lot more communication.

Hans

I don't really see how this will create more communications, every plane always needed to have a landing clearance, now they have to wait until the preceding aircraft has landed. The way it works now, you check in with the tower and it is "cleared to land". I think making them wait on the call might improve the incursions that are happen. In FLL several times in the past they clear a plane on to hold, of course the landing aircraft received his clearance when he checked in automatically as ususal and maybe did not hear the aircraft cleared into position. Now if the controller forgets about one or the other you have a accident waiting to happen. The only reason this has not happened in the past there is that there is a big displaced threshold so the landing aircraft overflew the on to hold guy.

I fly to Europe and may airports will not clear you to land until the preceding aircraft is clear of the runway, this makes the controller do one final check to make sure the landing area is clear. The landing clearance will have to be given either way, just with the new method it becomes a conscious clearance instead of an automatic transmission. Under the existing policy the controller used his ability to direct a go around if there became a conflict. Personally I think the one landing clearance thing at a time is a good thing, at least for night operations. Daytime I can clear my own landing area.

Cheers

 

[Ron Lee]

I avoid "Position and Hold"

That should be eliminated if it is still used.

 

[jbDC9]

I avoid "Position and Hold"

That should be eliminated if it is still used.

Uhh, no. "Position and hold", or, in other countries, "Line up and wait" is a very useful time saver at high volume airports. If you think the takeoff delays are bad at places like Atlanta, Newark, La Guardia, O'Hare, etc., try eliminating this procedure. It's a great way to keep traffic flowing... it just requires that both pilots and controllers pay attention to what's going on. A fairly recent change by the FAA is that at minimally staffed towers the procedure can't be used; gotta have another set of eyes or two to monitor the operation.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I avoid "Position and Hold"

That should be eliminated if it is still used.

How so? At some airports, "position and hold" may not be a good idea. At others, it is invaluable. ADS is one of those - a single runway, lots of different types of traffic.

Example: I am holding short at the departure end. A king air 200 lands. I am cleared to taxi into position and hold and wait for the king air to clear. As soon as they are clear, I am given clearance to take off.

TODR

 

[hngrflyr]

How so? I am holding short at the departure end. A king air 200 lands. I am cleared to taxi into position and hold and wait for the king air to clear. As soon as they are clear, I am given clearance to take off.

TODR

We still use "taxi into position and hold" here and it works just fine. Taxiing distances on our airport are long to the ends of runways. There are many intersection departures. At times, things get very busy. "Position and hold" works well to move the most traffic in the shortest time.