New phraseology for ruway entry

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by bookworm

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

[GuruCube]

Originally Posted by 2 sheds

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...

[GT3]

Originally Posted by GuruCube

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...

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]

Originally Posted by GT3

(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

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)