New phraseology for ruway entry

[Dan Dare]

NATS has mandated new phraseology, which includes the runway entry point with every clearance for aircraft or vehicles to enter or cross the runway - e.g. "BAW123 after the landing VIR B747 2 mile final line up and wait runway 27L at NW1, you are number 2 for departure, number 1 is from the intersection ahead" pause for breath before traffic information etc.

How do we feel about this?
Will it provide any reduction in runway incursions?
Will it make matters worse as pilot get used to hearing an entry point each time and become blasé about it?
Does it increase safety or is it just another PITA with which to nail us when someone gets it wrong one has been missed somewhere in the previous half hour?

I'm sure someone can put it more eloquently than me.

[chevvron]

Any contribution to safety is cancelled out by increased RTF workload.

[vintage ATCO]

I have in the past used the runway entry point where I thought it was useful or helped situational awareness. Now we have to use it all the time I think totally devalues that usefulness. Bah humbug. Time I retired!

[2 sheds]

Vintage ATCO

Quite agree. And, of course, the fact that NATS is apparently going its own way in this respect also degrades the possible effectiveness when the rest of the country/world is doing something different. If NATS is so convinced that this is a Good Thing, why not argue the case with CAA and at least get the Authority to mandate it throughout the UK. But then NATS thinks that it runs ATC in the UK, I suppose - or, more likely, it is just the result of middle management grasping at straws in their efforts to demonstrate that they are doing something about safety.

Having said that, I have always been of the opinion that such a conditional instruction relating to a landing aircraft should specify the position of that aircraft.

Equally vintage - and unimpressed - 2 s

[chevvron]

Coming soon - NATS will require us to say 'degrees' after all heading instructions even where the heading ends in 5.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'm sure I did this all the time: "...at the threshold line up and wait".. "At (intersection) line up and wait", etc..

Always said "degrees" after a heading and always said "millibars" after the QNH and some people laughed at me for 30 years!!!

[eastern wiseguy]

Coming soon - NATS will require us to say 'degrees' after all heading instructions even where the heading ends in 5.

I find myself doing that more and more...ANYTHING to try to stop level busts

[SonicTPA]

The problem with the phraseology is that it is the opposite order to what is in the Mats Pt 1. How can you be told off, or tell someone off, for using phraseology that's written in the Mats Pt 1?

I tried a conditional with the new phraseology (at a v quiet time), and while I said:
"C/s, after the landing a/c, via A1, line up and wait Rw xx"

It sounded like I said:
"C/s, after the landing A/c via A1, line up and wait Rw xx"

The irony is, that when the A/c is at A1, there is absolutely no way that it can enter the runway via any other point...! (And we're not allowed intermediate departures anyway)

Sonic

[Winnie The Pooh]

"BAW123 after the landing VIR B747 2 mile final line up and wait runway 27L at NW1, you are number 2 for departure, number 1 is from the intersection ahead" pause for breath before traffic information etc.

Pilot reads back - 'Roger, after the landing VIR line up 27L'

ATCO .. "BAW123 after the landing VIR B747 2 mile final line up and wait runway 27L at NW1, you are number 2 for departure, number 1 is from the intersection ahead"

Pilot....'roger tower, copied after the landing 747 line up'

ATCO... " Sorry old boy but due to the recent imposition of strict adherence to MATS 1, I am required to obtain a readback in full of all clearances to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack cross or hold short of any active RWY" :ugh:

'sigh'

[vector801]

I'll just add my pennies worth,

I always give the Holding Point Designator with either a Line Up / Take-Off Clearance.

e.g. BMI2772, via A1, RWY 30 Line Up & Wait / Cleared For Take-Off

Just recentley through our Runway Safety Meetings it has now been decided that we should give the Holding Point Designator with a Line Up / Take-Off Clearance if the aircraft is depating from the last available Holding Point (Not Mats Pt 1. Required).
Seems to work fine here as it's more of a spacial awareness thing for other users on the R/T and not so much the departing aircraft (Like someone said above the only way onto the runway is where they are already). We have a lot of VFR traffic that departs from intermediate HP and numerous Free Ranging Vehicles on the airfield. I just think it build up a better picture for them as to who's doing what from where.


Regards, V801

[NudgingSteel]

It's another line of defence in a situation where there are aircraft holding at several different runway entry points. We all know of incidents where the wrong crew has taken a line-up clearance as they have missed or misheard the callsign being used. If the ATCO also specifies the runway entry point in the line-up instruction, there is another chance for a misheard instuction to be queried on the flightdeck, as the entry point won't tie up with where the aircraft is holding.

[matspart3]

No 'line up' phraseology issue here but interesting, nevertheless

tp://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/MostWantedFed/AnimationDescription.htm

[the_hawk]

your URL should start with http (of course), anyway thanks for posting, I already asked the "Rumour & News" Mods to re-open the thread on this incident 3 days ago but didn't get a reply from them yet - I guess the display for who is "Rumour & News" Mod is just outdated...

[chevvron]

We have 7 yes seven points where vehicles may enter the runway but which are not available to aircraft, hence there are no holding point designators for these positions.
Had a proper hazard analysis been undertaken, this point would have been highlighted.

[withins]

Of course the "Improving situational awareness" argument to justify all this assumes that every pilot flying into our respective airports is fully familiar with the airport layout re. runways, taxiways, holding points etc.

Obviously many of them are not, so you will still have the disconcerting situation (for the aircrew that is) of an aircraft being instructed to line up on a runway that they have already received a landing/take off clearance for, as they patently won't have time to check on a chart exactly where the other a/c is when on short final/during the take-off run leading I would think to a slight feeling of panic.

So even though it seems belt and braces it's not foolproof!

[bookworm]

A couple of days ago at Rotterdam I was holding at V1 which is the last but one entry to RW24. Another aircraft was entering via the end of runway holding point, and I was given an instruction that I recall as "after the departing <aircraft type> line up behind and wait". Thus I needed to wait until the other had commenced its take-off roll and passed the intersection.

In operations at my home base, I don't recall an aircraft at an intersection being given such a conditional line-up clearance that included waiting for a departing aircraft to pass an intersection. Is that standard practice? It reminded me of the runway collision at CDG a few years ago, though in this particular case it was perfectly clear what was intended.

[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. :confused:

[2 sheds]

A couple of days ago at Rotterdam I was holding at V1 which is the last but one entry to RW24. Another aircraft was entering via the end of runway holding point, and I was given an instruction that I recall as "after the departing <aircraft type> line up behind and wait". Thus I needed to wait until the other had commenced its take-off roll and passed the intersection.
In operations at my home base, I don't recall an aircraft at an intersection being given such a conditional line-up clearance that included waiting for a departing aircraft to pass an intersection. Is that standard practice? It reminded me of the runway collision at CDG a few years ago, though in this particular case it was perfectly clear what was intended.

Exactly - in your case, BW, it was quite clear, an accurate condition prefixed the instruction, which, presumably you read back. The situation at Paris was that the controller thought that the Shorts 360 was behind the MD at the threshold holding point and therefore it was pointless, indeed, confusing and wrong, to give a conditional line-up.

The UK CAA addressed this potential disaster scenario by requiring ATC to specify the holding point designator if a line-up is given at an intersection other than for a full-length departure. However, to be effective, it has to be guaranteed that a pilot will query the instruction if he is given a line-up from such a position without the holding point being specified. I do not recall any publicity (AIC etc) emphasising this procedure to pilots. If anyone has seen any such material, I stand to be corrected, but the criticism still stands, that it is a half-baked procedure. If NATS is introducing the procedure that is the subject of this thread, that would seem to be far more pertinent, but why, oh why, are they not going through CAA are getting it standardised throught the UK?

[vintage ATCO]

Right on, 2sheds.

The problem at CDG was compounded by one instruction being in French, and the other in English.

[bookworm]

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. :confused:
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.

[Chilli Monster]

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.

Whether you get a conditional clearance or not will tell you where the aircraft is - so no need for more situational awareness on your part.

If the aircraft is downwind of you (not passed you yet) then the clearance would be given as you had experienced it. However, if the aircraft was upwind (either passed you or was linining up ahead of you) then no conditional clearance would have been given - it would have been either a straight "Line up and wait" if number 1 had rolled passed your position or, if it was still sat on the runway awaiting departure then "Line up and wait, number 2 for departure, number 1 is a xxx departing ahead of you from......."

[Dan Dare]

Eloquently put by Gary

Look at the amount of RT required on the ground and many regional UK airports, required seemingly for 'ar*e-covering' reasons. With the current concern about rwy incursions, surely the emphasis should be on 'less is more' - the tendency for the important bits of info to get lost in the meleé is increasing.

I mean no criticism of the ATCOs thumbing the mic; the whole developing trend is widespread across the UK and smacks to me of someone somewhat removed from operational activities jerking their knee rather vigorously.

Example, compare EDI to AMS.
EDI: "EZY 123 After inbound 146 Taxi Hold D1 Runway 24 via E1 cross undershoot runway 12 QNH 1019"
AMS: (from 'H' cul-de-sac, on the opposite side of the airfield): "Taxi Runway 24"

Standard taxi routings and removal of all unnecessary bits of RT (checking the QNH again? Make sure you hold short of everything! Watch those wingtips! Cleared to cross that closed runway!" do wonders for clarity of RT.

I promise you I have had colleagues in that very situation forget to readback the most important 'hold short' condition of the clearance in all the mess, and amongst the (unnecessarily) saturated RT it has gone unnoticed by ATC.

What's more important, actually ensuring good communication and preventing runway incursions, or making sure that when there is one it isn't the manager's fault - because he thought of insisting on inserting seven different ar*e-covering instructions in the taxi clearance?



at the following thread: -

Unnecessary RT (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=254473)

[GuruCube]

The UK CAA addressed this potential disaster scenario by requiring ATC to specify the holding point designator if a line-up is given at an intersection other than for a full-length departure. However, to be effective, it has to be guaranteed that a pilot will query the instruction if he is given a line-up from such a position without the holding point being specified. I do not recall any publicity (AIC etc) emphasising this procedure to pilots.
I must admit this is something I have thought since the intermediate rule came along. It seems illogical to do it to only half of the holding points. Surely then it will only stop half of the incursions?? Whats to stop the guy at the intermediate lining up if he doesnt hear the holding point?

-This doesnt mean Im in favour of then new 'via A1' rule though... :ugh:

[GT3]

I must admit this is something I have thought since the intermediate rule came along. It seems illogical to do it to only half of the holding points. Surely then it will only stop half of the incursions?? Whats to stop the guy at the intermediate lining up if he doesnt hear the holding point?
-This doesnt mean Im in favour of then new 'via A1' rule though... :ugh:

I understood the original CAA idea of naming the intersection was to stop someone at the full length from rolling (you are also meant to give the intersection when clearing for take off from an intersection) rather than to prevent runway incursions.

Interestingly I was corrected by a BMI crew the other night when whilst busy I forgot to put "via" in my clearance to them. They do seem to be adopting the new words.

[2 sheds]

(you are also meant to give the intersection when clearing for take off from an intersection)


GT3

What is your reference for that statement, please?

[GT3]

It could be the LHR Mats2 to be honest. I was taught it when I was trained in 99/00. I would assume it is still there. I will try and look for it.

[loubylou]

Bookworm - the criteria that you have quoted relate to multiple line up clearances - ie have more than one aircraft lined up at any one time and NOT to a conditional line up clearance. EG - c/s via A1 line up and wait rwy xx, number 2 for dep to the type lining up ahead of you" - therefore you can line up now. Which is why you won't get that clearance at night ( or if any of the other conditions are not met)
Conditional clearance - " c/s - after the departing/ landing type via A1 line up and wait rwy xx" - therefore the departing /landing aircraft will be passing you and then you can line up. The only condition there is that the controller can see both aircraft, and the it is reasonable that the aircraft given the conditional clearance to would see the aircraft that the conditional clearance relates to. ( ie you at the holding point can see the dep/landing aircraft)
I think I've explained that properly - but then it all makes sense to me!!!!

louby

[airac]

[QUOTE=loubylou;3016512 . The only condition there is that the controller can see both aircraft, and the it is reasonable that the aircraft given the conditional clearance to would see the aircraft that the conditional clearance relates to. ( ie you at the holding point can see the dep/landing aircraft)
I think I've explained that properly - but then it all makes sense to me!!!!
louby[/QUOTE]


"and the it is reasonable that" , Unfortunately the relevent paragraph doesn't say that it simply states that the A/C that the conditional clearance relates to should be visible to the Pilot /driver /Controller. Whilst I generally agree with your sentiments , this is already causing interesting discusions as to whether the said A/C needs to be continuously visible ( I do not think that is the case) more importantly though is the fact that Mats pt one ,now states that the subject should be visible ,Granted it does specify a limit to the number of A/C ,as it always has done, BUT how do we the controller know that the observer has the correct A/C in sight?
Common sense should prevail but in these days of SMS etc if it's not written in black and white somebody somewhere is going to interpret the paragraph in a way which would erode any advantage gained by a conditional clearance by increasing the R/T loading prior to issuing the damn thing:ugh:

It would appear to me that by increasing the R/T inorder to prevent RWY incursions any actual instructions to Cross/Not cross are getting lost in transmission from one brain to another ( thats VIA the mouth and ears ofcourse):=