PDA

View Full Version : "Position and Hold" to disappear in US?


Shore Guy
6th Mar 2006, 19:15
From AVweb.......

Runway Holds Banned?
Taxi-into-position-and-hold (TIPH) (scroll down to 3-9-4) clearances can
speed up operations but they can also put aircraft in direct conflict if
things go awry and recent stirrings suggest the FAA may be moving toward a
nationwide ban on the practice. According to numerous e-mails received by
AVweb, the practice will officially end March 20, but FAA sources weren't
able to confirm that for AVweb prior to this publication. Already
commenting, however, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association says
the ban will have something opposite of the desired effect on safety. NATCA
spokesman Doug Fralick said eliminating TIPH will make it much more
difficult for controllers to judge how much time is needed to ensure the
runway is clear for the next aircraft on approach, ultimately decreasing an
airport's flights-per-hour capacity while adding more variables to a
controller's equation. If the plane taking off is already on the runway and
ready to go, the departure time is easy to predict, but if the next plane in
line has to maneuver onto the runway, perhaps backtrack and get turned
around, seconds can easily turn to minutes and the chance for conflict
grows. "Therefore the likelihood is that spacing on finals will have to be
increased, once again decreasing capacity while at the same time the FAA is
doing all they can to increase capacity," Fralick noted. He also said the
FAA is using a blanket approach to the issue when there are many airports
that have never had a problem caused by TIPH. "The bottom line is that the
loss of TIPH will make the airport environment a more dangerous place than
it was before," Fralick said. "I couldn't imagine not being able to use this
time proven tool."

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/588-full.html

jondc9
6th Mar 2006, 20:00
taxi into position and hold


maybe, just maybe when the arrival and departure rate goes down, the responsible parties will build more runways and actually create an airport environement capable of growth.

oh well, I'll bet we will hear more, " cleared for IMMEDIATE TAKEOFF OR HOLD SHORT".

j

ironbutt57
6th Mar 2006, 21:23
Why don't we hear ICAO standard.."line up and wait" hear more confusion from US carriers over seas with this phraseology difference (one among 400 or so) after all the US is an ICAO member state...why not standardize???

Airbubba
6th Mar 2006, 23:26
Or the dicey conditional clearance "behind landing aircraft on final, line up and wait"...

stilton
7th Mar 2006, 01:00
'Line up and wait behind the landing aircraft' is a commonsense procedure and poses no danger as long as both parties understand what is required.

'Position and hold' however has always been an accident waiting to happen
(as indeed it did a few years ago in LA) Controllers can get distracted and
'forget' the holding traffic, especially at night with the aircraft hard to see, (LA) furthermore, in the US, controllers commonly clear aircraft to land with several aircraft ahead of them and/or departing aircraft still on the runway.

A dubious procedure at best...

captjns
7th Mar 2006, 02:33
What's the differene between "Line up and wait", or "Position and hold" it's the same thing... just words is all. True ICAO sets the standards that is generally adopted by the member states and should be uniform globally.
However national aviation agencies are not bound by terms established by ICAO.

n5296s
7th Mar 2006, 02:46
It'll certainly have an effect at my local airport (Palo Alto, a little speck of a runway that you see during the left turn to line up with 28L/R at SFO, but one of the busiest GA airports in the US). At busy times when they have 6 or more aircraft in the pattern they have something 2 movements per minute, and anything which slows things down will make sunny Saturday mornings even more of a nightmare than they already are.

Oh well...

n5296s

Huck
7th Mar 2006, 05:16
Twenty years ago, when I was training pre-solo, a BE-18 freighter was cleared into position and hold at my home airport, under heavy IFR conditions.

He sat there for 6 minutes without saying anything. And then an F-4 landed on him. They found his body halfway through the #2 engine. The F-4 crew lived to tell the tale.

Fast forward: I'm in Las Vegas, at night, middle of the SWA arrival swarm, aircraft lined up for 20 miles to land on the left side. They taxi us into position and hold on the right. We sit for 5 minutes. I (the flight engineer) point out to the front enders that if any one of those landing crews pick the wrong runway, we're quite dead. I couldn't even convince them to turn the strobes on until we were rolling.

The moral of the story: it's an o.k. maneuver, I guess, but sit out there for more than a minute and you better be making some noise on the radio, watching your TCAS and listening closely to the landing clearances given. That accident in LAX was a parallel runway situation also....

Speedbird-400
7th Mar 2006, 06:04
Didnt really think of position-and-hold as an issue until a couple months back - sat at the end of an unnamed US airport runway for all of 3 minutes before controller relented and let us go. Thank the lord for wipe-clean seats.....

West Coast
7th Mar 2006, 06:05
"That accident in LAX was a parallel runway situation also"

Which accident are you referring to? When you say accident I think of my old airline, SkyWest and the USair guppy that landed on top of it.

Ignition Override
7th Mar 2006, 07:30
And at world-class DFW Int'l, Tower controllers used runway 17R, which is very closely spaced with 17C, as an extra taxiway in limited visibility-to park aircraft! := Did the NTSB even fault the Tower Supervisor for dreaming up that brilliant idea?

It was pure luck that an inbound aircraft, which lined up on the wrong runway, landed over and past them on 17R. Never mind the dangers at Midway (MDW), Hou. Hobby (HOU) or Cleveland (CLE), due to dangerous runway layouts and/or length. Providence (PVD) had a dangerous situation develop a few years ago, with fog. Shades of Tenerife.

How many other guys/gals always switch on flood lights when on or even crossing a runway-whether operational or with construction in progress?

Tarq57
7th Mar 2006, 08:50
As a controller, the only problem I've observed with "taxi into position and hold" (US) is that is has been confused with the (then) ICAO phrase "taxi to the holding position" (Now sensibly replaced with holding point)
There has been occasion when an American pilot has confused "..holding position" with "hold in position". I know of one controller had to order a go-round as a result.
So standardisation can and should be a useful, sensible tool, provided the correct phrases are selected, and phrases used not changed in a whimsical manner, as seems to happen from time to time.
Seen quite a lot of discussion on exact interpretation of some phrases here, which suggest some can be open to interpretation. eg: "Behind the xxx on two mile final line up behind and wait.
(By the way, "wait" need only be used if it is expected there will be a delay to the departing flight)
It all suggests to me that keeping it simple and issuing progressive clearances ranks amongst some of the better safety tools a controller can use.

False Capture
7th Mar 2006, 09:29
What's the differene between "Line up and wait", or "Position and hold" it's the same thing... just words is allI disagree, the use of the word "hold" is ambiguous. Why use the verb (ie. "hold") to describe an action when the aircraft is waiting at the noun (ie. "hold"). Use of the phrase "line-up and wait" is unambiguous.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
7th Mar 2006, 09:54
<<Or the dicey conditional clearance "behind landing aircraft on final, line up and wait"...>>

Absolutely nothing "dicey" about this procedure, which I've used hundreds of thousands of times (although in the UK we now say "after...")... but...

<<'Line up and wait behind the landing aircraft' is a commonsense procedure and poses no danger >>

Is immensely dangerous.

Why don't pilots use the correct phraseology?

Few Cloudy
7th Mar 2006, 10:02
Problem is that there is more than one "Position" at an airfield.

As a matter of fact, as has been pointed out on another thread, "position" can be anywhere you are, or are going - as in "Hold position" -ie stop where you are. Then of course, we have the "Holding Position". Quite a salad of opportunites for misunderstandings there.

"Line up" or "Line up and wait" while on the ground, can only really mean on the R/W.

And by the way it was changed to "Line up and Wait" from "Line up and Hold" a few years back to avoid even more confusion.

Flight Detent
7th Mar 2006, 10:46
Hey HUCK,

All thru my 26 years of international (well, most of it was international!), whenever I was on or crossing any active runway, the strobes were always on!
Why not with your boys?

Cheers FD :ugh:

Keygrip
7th Mar 2006, 12:12
HD asked, "Why don't pilots use the correct phraseology?". I've often wondered the same.

I was in the traffic pattern at a regional airfield just last week and saw a fractional ownership biz. jet waiting at the "Holding Point".

AS the landing aircraft crossed the threshold in front of the jet, ATC said "XXXX taxi into position and hold". The flight crew came back, in cheery voice, with "We're on the hold"

WTF does that mean?

captjns
7th Mar 2006, 13:04
I disagree, the use of the word "hold" is ambiguous. Why use the verb (ie. "hold") to describe an action when the aircraft is waiting at the noun (ie. "hold"). Use of the phrase "line-up and wait" is unambiguous.

I don't know, but never had a problem with the word "hold" either. Now the term "holding position" is not a term used in the US. Controllers in the US come out right and say hold short of the ILS/CAT III A line. which is more direct than hold point. But hey.... its all about semantics... isn't it?

HD asked, "Why don't pilots use the correct phraseology?". I've often wondered the same.

I was in the traffic pattern at a regional airfield just last week and saw a fractional ownership biz. jet waiting at the "Holding Point".

AS the landing aircraft crossed the threshold in front of the jet, ATC said "XXXX taxi into position and hold". The flight crew came back, in cheery voice, with "We're on the hold"

WTF does that mean?

Thats why airlines have a director of flight standards... SOPs

West Coast
7th Mar 2006, 15:25
"Why not with your boys?"

Every time I crossed a runway they were on. While not universal, I see a large number of my fellow US pilots do the same.

bekolblockage
7th Mar 2006, 15:57
How about just "Line up". ???

Huck
7th Mar 2006, 16:13
All thru my 26 years of international (well, most of it was international!), whenever I was on or crossing any active runway, the strobes were always on!
Why not with your boys?

Our official policy is to turn on lights that "silhouette" the aircraft when on the runway. Strobes & landing lights come on on takeoff roll. Taxi light is on whenever moving under its own power.

My problem with it is - many of our old 727's don't have logo lights. Therefore the ONLY thing visible from directly behind is the navs and the strobes. The navs are close enough to the runway edge to be lost in the clutter, so that leaves strobes (same position, but a good deal easier to spot).

In a former life I was a heavy captain, and I never moved without the inspection/turn lights on. Same reason, only from the side - I witnessed a death one time of a ramper running a tug into the side of a moving aircraft in heavy rain. I guess the downside is blinding those taxiing around you.....

Tarq57
7th Mar 2006, 19:02
I disagree, the use of the word "hold" is ambiguous. Why use the verb (ie."hold") to describe an action when the aircraft is waiting at the noun (ie. "hold"). Use of the phrase "line-up and wait" is unambiguous.
I have a bit of a problem with this type of argument, not just because "hold" can be a verb or a noun, and not just because "wait" is a verb that can sound like a noun (weight), but simply because the reality of aviation English is that it's often spoken by people with English as a second language. A phraseology should not be designed nor require an interpretation that requires such a detailed analysis of which meaning a word might have depending on context.
Line up and hold was standard years ago. I've seen a near collision because a pilot not used to a controlled aerodrome misheard it as "Line up and roll".
The current phraseology design appears to be an attempt to make context-dependent phrases sound different, and I'm all for that.
Just by the way, the first day I used "line up and wait", some wag (having a go at the ever evolving phraseology changes) replied "lining up, we're a heavy"
Never had a problem with the belt-and-braces "behind behind". (except when first introduced it sounded dorky).
Very seldom use "line up and wait", preferring "line up." If there is a subsequent delay and the reason is not blindingly obvious, I'll tell the pilot what and why. IMO "wait" should be largely redundant, not because it's confusing; rather because it's usually not necessary. (Apart from Tenneriffe,) nobody rolls until they've heard and readback a takeoff clearance. If they do, it's not the phrase at fault.

False Capture
7th Mar 2006, 23:20
... the reality of aviation English is that it's often spoken by people with English as a second language. It's also spoken by people who speak English with funny accents ... such as Kiwis.:}

By the way, when did the word "weight" become an offiicial ATC word?

Tarq57
7th Mar 2006, 23:39
About the same time the noun "hold" did.

Ignition Override
8th Mar 2006, 01:16
Many of our planes are not equipped with strobe lights.

They cost money, especially to retrofit.

rigpiggy
8th Mar 2006, 01:29
As per a previous post, don't know the JAR's anything similiar?
Straight from the FAA edited for length
USE OF EXTERIOR AIRCRAFT LIGHTS TO MAKE AIRCRAFT MORE CONSPICUOUS.
b. Exterior Lights. To the extent possible and consistent with aircraft equipage, operating limitations, and flightcrew procedures, pilots should illuminate exterior lights as follows:
(1) Engines Running. Turn on the rotating beacon whenever an engine is running.
(2) Taxiing. Prior to commencing taxi, turn on navigation, position, anti-collision, and logo lights, if available. To signal intent to other pilots, consider turning on the taxi light when the aircraft is moving or intending to move on the ground, and turning it off when stopped, yielding, or as a consideration to other pilots or ground personnel. Strobe lights should not be illuminated during taxi if they will adversely affect the vision of other pilots or ground personnel.
(3) Crossing a Runway. All exterior lights should be illuminated when crossing a runway.
CAUTION: Flightcrews should consider any adverse effects to safety that illuminating the forward facing lights will have on the vision of other pilots or ground personnel during runway crossings.
(4) Entering the departure runway for takeoff or “position and hold.” When entering a runway either for takeoff, or when taxiing into “position and hold,” flightcrews should make their aircraft more conspicuous to aircraft on final behind them and to ATC by turning on lights (except for landing lights) that highlight the aircraft’s silhouette. Strobe lights should not be illuminated if they will adversely affect the vision of other pilots.
Page 14 Par 7
9/26/03 AC 120-74A (5) Takeoff. Turn on landing lights when takeoff clearance is received, or when commencing takeoff roll at an airport without an operating control tower.
NOTE: The SOP of turning on landing lights when takeoff clearance is received is a signal to other pilots, ATC, and ground personnel that the aircraft is moving down the runway for takeoff.

Obviously within the limits of good airmanship

arcniz
8th Mar 2006, 01:53
"Position and Hold" has long been a sweet sound for me...especially after grinding through a line of departures ahead.

Problem with P&H is that it puts the PIC in a situation where he/she has no clear authority to proceed withut further instruction. In the air, this is not a disabling issue, on the ground it is much more ambiguous. In the P&H position, any trouble that is coming is likely going to be invisible to the PIC; the only indirect information available is from radio trafic and 'gut feel', and authority to deviate from P&H is not well defined, even when intuition says something has gone badly wrong.

From the P&H position, the PIC has a short list of options: a) Take off - hardly likely without a clearance, b) Clear the runway - also unlikely without some external advisory...and often difficult for larger aircraft because the 'on-runway' hold position is typically ahead of a convenient taxi-back position, so a slow and careful and possibly impossible turn is required to 'undo' the on-runway hold, or the alternative is a taxi down the runway to the next intersection. These things are also not normally achievable without tower communication. Or C) stay there and suffer.

SO - the worst problem is - what the HF to do if one is Position/Hold and then the music stops.. zero feedback. No further clearance.. time passes.. sweat trickles down the collar.

I would suggest the fix for this is NOT to eliminate P&H, but to put a time limit on the hold duration, in some unambiguous manner. Either specify a hold duration, or let the hold automatically expire into a departure after, for example, 120 seconds -- unless HOLD is renewed --, or at least define the situation as 'all bets are off' 120 seconds after the clearance, so aircraft holding must take the initative to obtain further info, and failing success in that...clear the runway in the best manner possible.

Useful procedure. Needs some procedural disambiguation.

stilton
8th Mar 2006, 02:25
Two simple rules come to mind.

Landiing clearance should not be given until the active runway is free of ALL taking off and landing traffic.

'Position and hold' or 'line up and wait' should not be allowed, aircraft should only be cleared for departure from the #1 position at the holding point short of the runway.

If it slows thing's down, so be it.

I would prefer to run the risk of 'blinding' other pilots with strobe lights than being on the runway at any time without using them and 'disappearing'

If they bother you, look away, you are being noticed and that is a good thing.

Dream Land
8th Mar 2006, 04:06
In the states we have taxi clearances to specific destinations, such as, "taxi to RW24L", no mention of holding points. :hmm:

westhawk
8th Mar 2006, 06:46
"Position and hold" is a useful clearance that benefits the expeditious flow of departing aircraft. The safety problems related to this clearance usually have something to do with a controller forgetting that there is an aircraft on the runway after having cleared another aircraft to land on that same runway. However, the same problem seems likely when aircraft are cleared to cross or take off from that runway even if no P&H clearance was ever issued. A recent incident of this second variety occured at LAX.

It seems to me that the problem would be more effectively addressed by witholding landing clearance to arriving aircraft until safe runway separation standards are assured than by eliminating "position and hold", which would address only one of the problems. Concentrating the safety effort on assuring a clear runway prior to issuance of landing clearance would probably provide a greater safety benefit without the negative effects upon traffic flow that will be associated with the elimination of P&H clearances.

All FAA towers were recently required to draft and submit their reasons why these clearances should be retained at their airports or else the clearance would be banned. Nearly all towers did so. Now we see this subject come up again. Without wanting to sound too much like a conspiracy theorist, I must say that it looks very much as though the highest levels of US government want ATC to be perceived by the public as a failed organization so that they can get on with privatizing it. It worked once with flight service. The reduction in runway capacity which would result from elimination of P&H would facilitate this perception. Dovetails nicely with the NATCA contract issues currently being fought over. I wouldn't be very shocked if it came to light that some "supporters" and "friends" of the current administration were ready to step in and "clean up" ATC for a profit. Cronies compensated. Rant over.

I hope this is all wrong.

Best regards,

Westhawk

Shore Guy
8th Mar 2006, 07:04
Looks like they might be changing their mind......for now.

FAA won't force airports to change takeoff procedures

BY JON HILKEVITCH
Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday eased up on imminent plans to revise airport procedures aimed at reducing the risk of an arriving airplane flying over or landing on top of another plane waiting on a runway to depart.

The changes, which the National Transportation Safety Board had recommended to the FAA over the past six years, were announced last week and had been set to begin March 20, during the peak of the spring-break travel period.

The proposed tightening of rules governing how planes line up at airports for takeoff would appear to help prevent a rare type of accident that could cause hundreds of deaths in a single collision.

The FAA notice to airport air-traffic control towers last week said mistakes are continuing to occur involving planes taxiing onto an active runway when an approaching plane is about to land on the same runway or an intersecting runway.

On Feb. 17, a controller at Los Angeles International Airport directed three aircraft to use the same runway, the FAA said. A departing SkyWest turboprop was cleared to use a runway on which a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 was about to land. The controller also cleared an Air Canada jet to cross the other end of the same runway.

Other incidents have occurred in recent years in Salt Lake City, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and at Midway Airport in Chicago, officials said.

But the FAA, reacting to related safety issues and concerns about flight delays ballooning, on Tuesday told the airlines and air-traffic controllers' and pilots' unions that it would grant at least temporary waivers from the new rules, starting with the nation's 35 busiest airports.

The FAA won't force airports to change their takeoff procedures, "but by March 20 airport towers will have to explain to us why they want to continue using it," said Russell Chew, the FAA's chief operating officer.

As a result, no immediate changes are expected to occur at O'Hare International Airport, Midway Airport or Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, officials said. But several hundred medium-sized and smaller airports could lose an air-traffic tool they have used to keep flights bound for the larger airports on schedule.

The controllers union said the FAA's planned change would add to congestion at already crowded airports, reducing arrival and departure rates by as much as 20 percent.

Under existing rules, a plane that is No. 2 in line for departure is permitted to taxi onto the runway and stop as soon as the plane in front starts its takeoff roll. Once the first plane is airborne and at least 6,000 feet down the runway, the second plane begins its takeoff roll and the next plane in line on the taxiway moves into takeoff position on the runway.

Air-traffic controllers call the procedure "locked and loaded," because it facilitates launching planes at tight intervals and keeps airports running efficiently.

Under the revisions the FAA was set to impose, planes in the No. 2 departure position would not be permitted to begin taxiing onto the runway until after the plane taking off in front is airborne.

The controllers' union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, contends the FAA over-reacted to a small number of high-profile cases in which human error caused arriving and departing planes to get perilously close to each other.

Controllers said the FAA's fix could unintentionally intensify risks on runways that are used for landings and takeoffs. Such a scenario would involve a controller directing a plane waiting on a taxiway to proceed to the runway for takeoff while an approaching plane is still five miles from touching down. A miscommunication between controller and pilot, or a delay in the plane entering the runway, could lead to a close call between the arriving and departing planes, potentially even a fly-over incident that could lead to a crash.

"You almost must already have the pilot on the runway in position so he is ready to roll when you tell him to," said Doug Fralick, director of safety and technology at the controllers union. "If the plane is still sitting on the taxiway, you lose your predictability because it takes time for the engines to spool up power and the plane to get into position."

golfyankeesierra
8th Mar 2006, 13:19
In this incident I believe it was a factor: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=129033&highlight=Munich .

I can't find a link to an official report but as I understand here were 3 parties involved: KLM, Air Dolomiti and a third.
Dolomiti was waiting for line-up at an intersection, KLM was on final but first there was a departure from the full length. As I understand it happened the Dolomiti was cleared to lineup behind (the landing KLM), but what it saw passing first was the departure from the beginning so it lined up behind that one, resulting in a near miss on the runway.

Again I haven't found any official publication about it, this is what I heard, thus not neccesarily true; however an interesting example of what can go wrong.

BTW: isn't it mandatory for controllers (and pilots to read back) to include some sort of identification in the clearance: f.i. "ABC behind DEF B737 on final line up and wait behind" i.s.o. "ABC behind landing aircraft line up and ..."?

Tarq57
9th Mar 2006, 01:49
GYS,
It is mandatory to read back the terms of a conditional clearance. At least in lil ol' NZ. There are other guidelines/requirements relating to zero risk of misidentifying the a/c concerned.
Also we have a (minor) difference in the required phraseology for a line up behind an arriving a/c, vs lining up after a departure. In the first case it's "Behind the Boeing short final line up behind." And inthe second it's "After the departing Boeing line up behind" . Small difference;questionable effectiveness; perhaps a bit subtle for many, but it's something.
It is also not permitted to offer a conditional line up unless it is behind the next a/c to use the runway. Eg: "Behind the 2nd Boeing at five mile final line up behind" is not on (nor would it ever be necessary). It is not necessary to identify the aircraft by airline/colour etc unless there is a risk of confusion.
There are (at least) two issues in this thread, The safety (or not) of conditional clearances, and the issue of the FAA withdrawing a useful and usually perfectly safe tool. Additional nclude the choice of phraseologies around the world to express the same idea, and whether phraseology use or misuse actually contributes to runway incursions. Sorry to state the bleedin obvious, but if an a/c is lined up waiting its turn to go, and the controller then clears someone to land on that runway, its not the phraseology at fault. And if it happens more than once, error tolerant systems need to be put in place tout sweet. (In our place it only took 3yr to get a more error tolerant system after a critical deficiency was identified :}

eltiolaco
14th Mar 2006, 16:52
Why not simply "... enter the runway xx".

and for take off ".... clear for takeoff rwy xx".

QAR ASR
16th Mar 2006, 07:12
Americans trying to decide on r/t standards, the lunatics really have got the keys to the assylum.

A ACCURACY
B BREVITY
C CLARITY

greek-freak
16th Mar 2006, 12:30
@ golfyankeesierra

I just checked, at www.bfu-web.de, the german accident investigation board, a report about this incident has not been published yet.

But if you check the accident bulletin of May 2004 you will find it.

Translation from german "The ATR42 entered RWY08R without clearance, during the landing of a B737. The ATR was on the left part of the RWY while the 737 passed it with 110KT on the right side of the RWY".

That is all the information there is right now. You have a very good point though about issuing conditional clearances for intersection take-offs due to potential mis-identification of acft.

What should be done?
1. don't issue conditional clearances for intersection take offs?
2. prohibit intersection take-offs?

golfyankeesierra
16th Mar 2006, 22:15
Sorry, when reading the thread again, I see the "behind-behind" clearance has offcourse nothing to do with the subject off the thread "TIPH".


What should be done?
1. don't issue conditional clearances for intersection take offs?
2. prohibit intersection take-offs?

Well: a lot of airports (in europe at least) use seperate runways for takeoffs and landings; this makes it much less risky, so here I see no problems.
As for single runway ops: the sequence should be absolutely clear, therefore include an unmistakable identification of the aircraft concerned: f.i.: "Behind landing Lufthansa A320 line up ......." i.s.o. "behind aircraft on final....."

This applies to TIPH as well

greek-freak
17th Mar 2006, 09:05
Still, if you take the Munich example there is a risk of misidentification, since there are typically lots of LH A320s around.

The problem is also that the intersection take-offs at EDDM are usually conducted from the high-speed turn-off twys for the opposite direction rwy, in this case 26L. This means that acft holding for an intesrection take off are at an angle of 25-30 degrees to the rwy in use and it might be hard for
them to see what is happening back there at the rwy threshold, epsecially
when the sun is setting. So in that particular case situational awareness
is certainly reduced.

Just some thoughts.

Do you have any information what the visibility was the day this incident happened?

Big Pistons Forever
17th Mar 2006, 18:47
I used to fly a PA31 into YVR several times a day on a bag run. Once I was given a Taxi to position and hold clearance with a 747 on what looked like a pretty close in final. I must say he sure looked big:uhoh: . I sat in position for about 30 sec before TO clearance but it felt like an eternity. I guess the controller heard the concern in my voice because his last words were " cleared for takeoff... and I bet you thought you were going to get squashed like a bug":hmm:

positionand hold
17th Mar 2006, 18:56
As I only fly "spamcans" (as some of you professional pilots like to call them - by the way, what DID you start flying in?), I have never had any problem with the expression or its meaning, hence my choice of it as a logon name. Surely the key is ATC demanding a clear and complete readback? There is a serious risk of over-engineering here - with almost every alternative which has been suggested.

Even with the dreadful accidents described, the suggested alternative phrasing may just as easily have been misunderstood. We have all heard people readback what they wanted to hear, rather than what was actually said.

P&H

golfyankeesierra
17th Mar 2006, 22:06
Do you have any information what the visibility was the day this incident happened?
No, sorry.
So in that particular case situational awareness
is certainly reduced.
You're right and it is all about S.A. (pilot and controller)
Still, if you take the Munich example there is a risk of misidentification, since there are typically lots of LH A320s around.
And in case of multiple LH A320's on final and departure, good S.A. would stop a controller from giving such a clearance.
But it will never be absolutely failsafe, so let's keep ours ears and eyes open!
Regards GYS