Line Up And Wait

[Sector 7G]

Hello folks. At LHR we were at about 300' ILS 09R when the tower controller cleared an aircraft to line up and wait 09R. This caused both of us on the flight deck concern. After vacating we questioned the whereabouts of the aircraft that had been cleared to line up whilst we were on very short finals, the response was that he was at the threshold.
My question is should that clearance have been "after the xxx on short finals, line up and wait 09R?" It indeed sounded very wrong to us in the air and we were surprised by the controllers curt response to a valid question. Any thoughts?

[AlanM]

Given that the aircraft didn't move, and there were no screams of "hold position!!!", are you sure you didn't miss the conditional part of the clearance? (as you said.... "AFTER The landing........")

[Pierre Argh]

yes, agree it sounds like it might have been a dodgy clearance... however, is this really the best forum you can think of to pose such a question. (C'mon remember all that CRM, Safety Management, Flight Safety etc etc training)... Have you discussed it with your company and the ATSU in question?

[Talkdownman]

Maybe you were no longer 'a factor' bearing in mind the displaced threshold and taxi distance from the full length holding point? Perhaps you were lower than that and already passed him? Agreed, it sounds disconcerting to you, so probably not a good enough reason to dispense with a conditional line-up.

[Sector 7G]

I posted it here to get an ATC perspective on the matter. I'm positive that the clearance was not conditional one. It caused us much concern at that late stage of the approach.

[Talkdownman]

Clearly something that should have been discussed with the watch manager after landing. Maybe you've missed your opportunity now?

[Sector 7G]

Yes its quite possible that I have, I suppose I can still follow it up for my own peace of mind. Thanks for the replies guys.

[Talkdownman]

I suggest that you contact the Manager ATC. RTF recordings will be held. Maybe SMR recordings too. Not as witch-hunt, just to discourage any trend, it doesn't sound too clever from what you report.

[055166k]

Sector 7G
Don't bury this; you could save a life. Most rational minds will applaud your concern, and it is so easy just to run the tape if you request sooner rather than later.
It could hi-light a clipped transmission due faulty transmit switch,
or faulty headset, or over-mute on your receiver affecting first part of transmission, or "stepped-on" block, or in fact anything.
At such a crucial stage of flight there is no more important reliance on the spoken words between ATC and the Flight-deck.
By the way...did you know that a controller's headset is a non-maintenance item...there is no checking or maintenance or regular replacement progamme...it can be expected to last for life.....awesome considering the importance vested in its performance and reliability.

[Yellow Snow]

I appreciate busy workload at that stage of flight but did you listen for a readback from the crew of said aircraft given the line-up?

Depending on what they readback would answer your question as to whether the controllers line-up instruction you heard was a mistake or a transmission you only got the start of:)

[Sector 7G]

Yes, their response was "line up and wait 09R" but we definitely did not see them enter the active runway.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Hi Sector 7G.. I'm a retired old codger, but did work Heathrow Tower for many, many years.. I recall the countless times I did pretty well what you heard.. An aircraft on short final for 09R and the next departure taxiing down what I will call "the extension taxiway" (probably got some other weird name now). Using the specific clearance "At the threshold, line up and wait", and emphasising "threshold" I did not add any condition on the basis that the lander was going to be past the threshold by the time the departure reached there.
I have also, probably thousands of times, cleared Checker unconditionally to enter the runway whilst an aircraft was landing, on the grounds that the lander had passed the checking vehicle. If the aircraft was still airborne, approaching a displaced threshold, I guess some pilots might have wondered what was happening but nobody ever queried it. In such cases I guess you have to trust that ATC knows what it's doing... most of the time!
I was just trying to think of reasons why you heard what you heard at that particular stage in the flight.... now back to the rubber ring and Horlicks.

[VectorLine]

Is 300' too low to intitiate a go around?

[GT3]

Is 300' too low to intitiate a go around?

NO not the ones I have seen anyway :E

[hooplaa]

I've always gone with the principle that if it's likely to cause heart failure on the flight deck then it does no harm to specify from where the aircraft will be lining up from eg 'via T1 line up and wait'. The landing ac will then know that they have passed said point and nothing to worry about.

If the ATCO was attempting to 'time it right' and departing ac was approaching the holding point and not likely to affect the landing ac when he issued the statement. I have but one comment.........slippery slope and all that!!!!

I am an ATCO at a unit where hi intensity runway ops rely on the use of conditionals (every 20secs on line up delay counts towards the next go-around) - anything we can do to retain their use we will do. If an LCE at our unit was to overhear the quoted EGLL example it would start with a quiet word in the shell like and move on up the scale of lessons in what not to do and why.:eek:

[Tarq57]

Re Heathrow director's response.
Never worked at LHR, probably never will, but for a bit of possibly pertinent context, our MATS (which was based on the UK's years ago,) does have an allowance for permitting runway use clearances, without condition, if no conflict is possible. It may well have been this scenario. Obvious to some, but perhaps not to all that a such a clearance maybe shouldn't be issued if it is likely to cause concern, eg your situation, if night or IMC, etc.
Either way, definitely worth checking out, if only for your own peace of mind.

[Talkdownman]

At Heathrow I suggested that my trainees consider the impact of their transmissions from other viewpoints. 09R was a case in point to 'keep the traffic moving' where there may have been a fresh queue to arrive at the hold especially from the southside where it was a long way from the stop-bar. A conditional may have been no longer applicable but the mention of the runway designator may have caused some consternation to landing traffic over the threshold so just the phrase 'Line Up' was used. It was permitted in those days in between permitted phraseologies 'Line up and hold' (= 'Roger, Line up and roll') and 'Line up and wait' (='Roger, Line up one eight'). It would seem that the option to transmit a short, punchy 'line up' without a runway designator is no longer permissible so we get embroiled in the time-wasting discussion 'do you mean after the one just touching down or is there another one?'. In those days we could get away with being sensibly inventive to 'keep the traffic moving', we had some wonderful, memorable characters eg. JK and IMC ("come rahnd the corner, power up on the brakes and release 'em when I tell yer....."). There once was a 'records' board in the 6th floor SBU with some ATCOs' achievements eg. JK and his record for 'the most aircraft cleared for take-off at any one time........' Maybe HD can remember some of the others...........

[CAP493]

By the way...did you know that a controller's headset is a non-maintenance item...there is no checking or maintenance or regular replacement progammeDon't know what unit you work at but this is definitely NOT the 'standard' situation and so please don't post generalisations of this nature which can be misconstrued by many.

Whilst it's true that each headset isn't tested daily for serviceability (any more than are those on the flight deck) if when it's used for the first time in the day i.e. when you 'plug in' at the start of your shift, it doesn't then work you should be able to immediately draw a spare and get yours handed in to ATC Engineering/Tels for repair or as at my unit, get issued with a replacement one and your 'old' one goes off for repair.

If the situation you describe really does exist at your unit, suggest you take it up with management and if you get no satisfaction, file an MOR!!
At LHR we were at about 300' ILS 09R when the tower controller cleared an aircraft to line up and wait 09R. This caused both of us on the flight deck concernThis sounds as though someone was 'anticipating' the situation i.e. that the departure just couldn't have accessed the runway in time to get there before you touched down. However, from a situational awareness perspective it's extremely bad practice because as you say, it causes the flight deck concern and who knows, another crew might have simply hit the TOGA button and gone around? I've worked at two UK HIRO airports and so I can agree and empathise with ATC's need to keep everything moving and not waste precious seconds given the hourly/daily movement rates needed, but the inclusion of a couple of extra words "after the landing XXX..." wouldn't have slowed things down and could have avoided the concern that you describe.

At my current unit, in pursuit of the ongoing runway safety initiative, all LCEs require the ATCOs to be aware of the need to enhance the flight deck's situational awareness. File an ASR or a CHIRP to keep this important issue on the front burner.

:ok:

[cantfullypark!]

Sector 7G,
Hi there - I was training the controller who issued that instruction to you on monday morning.
Having discussed the timing of the clearance - the controller is now aware of the implications and alarm it could cause an inbound crew. To prove the lesson was learnt, we were in exactly the same position the following morning to which the phrase was prefixed with 'After the landing.. short final....'
If the retort while you were vacating came across as short - it was not meant to! We were in fact discussing said concerns and in addition still trying to squeeze the departure away before your colleages behind you landed.
I hope this helps, but if you still want to discuss it further contact NATS Heathrow and we would be happy to accommodate you.
CFP.

[Dances with Boffins]

I love happy endings.

Anyone says that Proon is just for management bashing, please direct them to this thread:ok:

[Bern Oulli]

D with B, obviously a boring lunch hour.

[Sector 7G]

cantfullypark! thankyou so much for the reply. Its good to know that this wasn't a standard clearance. We must have misconstrued the response by the controller. It just concerned me as I was flying and if it had been Cat 1 weather I would've pressed the TOGA switches.

Thanks again.

[CAP493]

I love happy endings.
Anyone says that Proon is just for management bashing, please direct them to this thread:ok:Hear hear! Well done to all involved.
:ok: :)

[yonash]

From another point of view.

Warsaw airport is getting more busy, so we observe different responses to our commands.
We've started using 2 RWY for dep, single for arrival (we have no parallel rwy, just the crossing).
See: most of the time we are using one rwy (29) for deps, another (33) for arr. What concerns pilots is, when the line-up is given for rwy 29, and the clrd to land rwy 33 was given before. There's much more concern with that situation (different rwys !), than during situtation, when RWY 33 is used for both deps and arrs, and rwy 29 is used for departures only, and "line-up behind arriving" was issued.

[Tarq57]

Yonash,
I guess a way to improve situational awareness of all concerned would be to include the runway in any clearance involving same.eg: "XXX line up RWY 29 and wait"
I believe this is an ICAO phraseology; the runway should be included where there is any possibility of confusion.
Some airlines make this SOP, to always read back the runway for TO or landing clearance.
Noticeable in my patch of dirt, coz there is only one runway.

[yonash]

Sure.You're right, it was just my way to shorten the message.

Situation goes like this:

- atc: rwy 33 clrd to land
- pil: we're cleared to land

- atc: line-up rwy 29 and wait
- pil: confirm line-up ?
- atc: affirm, line-up rwy 29, the arrival traffic is for rwy 33
- pil: lining-up.

- atc: behind landing a319 line-up rwy 33 behind and wait.
pilot readbacks correctly with no confusion.

That's the point - I don't know why, it's been more confusing to line-up another rwy (we almost ever use rwy designator), than the same as departure.

[Tarq57]

Is it my imagination, or is what was once straightforward and logical now complex and worrisome?:confused:

[yonash]

imagination, for sure :D