Originally Posted by
vintage ATCO
Don't see anything unusual with that, bookworm. Happens all the time at Luton where acft have to backtrack to the end of the runway and therefore the next departure is waiting at the hold some 400m down the runway. It's either a conditional clearance to backtrack or line up behind. Happens with light aircraft taking the mid-point too.
I'm slightly puzzled you think it unusual.
For whatever reason I've not spent much time at airports where it's SOP -- I'm not suggesting it's a Bad Thing. I suppose what concerns me slightly is this:
If instructed to line up after a
landing aircraft, it's clear where that aircraft will be, and that it will pass the intersection at which I'm waiting. However, if instructed to line up behind a
departing aircraft, that aircraft may be upwind or downwind of the intersection, thus I may have to wait for an aircraft to pass, or I may not. That requires substantially more situational awareness on my part.
Looking at MATS Pt 1, I can't see an example of phraseology for such an instruction. It has:
After the landing (aircraft type) line-up. but not
After the departing (aircraft type) line-up. It also says:
12.1 Line up instructions may be issued to more than one aircraft at different points on the same or crossing runways provided that:
a) it is during daylight hours;
b) all aircraft are continuously visible to the aerodrome controller;
c) all aircraft are on the same RTF frequency;
d) pilots are advised of the number of aircraft ahead in the departure sequence, and the position/runway from which these aircraft will depart;
e) the physical characteristics of the runway do not render preceding aircraft in the departure sequence invisible to succeeding aircraft on the same runway. While MATS Pt 1 is not in itself relevant to Rotterdam, I guess my concern is that even having been clearly told that I was no.2 for departure, there was still (theoretical) room for doubt as to where no. 1 was departing from. That ambiguity caused a death at CDG.