Line Up And Wait
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: FL330
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.
Thanks again.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Poland
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.
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.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,694
Likes: 15
From: Wellington,NZ
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.
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.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Poland
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.
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.
