EdiGla
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK Seas
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EdiGla
Why oh why, when at EDI and at GLA do we have to read back this most unnecessary, annoying clearance before taxying:
"Taxy to holding point x, clear to cross the 'xy' undershoot...."
Lets face it, the runway that the undershoot belongs to, is closed 99% of the time.
Also, think about it, when landing or taking off we also cross the same airspace as the undershoot, just a few meters further, but we don't get clearances like "Clear take off/to land AND clear to cross the damn undershoot!
At other airports this doesn't happen. Imagine in AMS, how many of these useless clearances they may have to issue, as you taxy about!
So, is this a local annoying effect or what? Also when you are clear to the holding point, you are clear, if not you are not, so why wind up everyone with trivia???
"Taxy to holding point x, clear to cross the 'xy' undershoot...."
Lets face it, the runway that the undershoot belongs to, is closed 99% of the time.
Also, think about it, when landing or taking off we also cross the same airspace as the undershoot, just a few meters further, but we don't get clearances like "Clear take off/to land AND clear to cross the damn undershoot!
At other airports this doesn't happen. Imagine in AMS, how many of these useless clearances they may have to issue, as you taxy about!
So, is this a local annoying effect or what? Also when you are clear to the holding point, you are clear, if not you are not, so why wind up everyone with trivia???
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a runway is not in use but is published in AIP as a useable runway then it makes sense to refer to it at all times as if it an active runway. This way there is no confusion and it ensures there is no risk of an incursion. Good example of this is Gatwick where the standy runway is used as a taxiway when the main runway is not available, but it is always referred to as 08L/26R and I believe vehicle drivers must request ATC clearance to enter even when it's used as a taxiway. So it does happen at other airports.
It's ATC's way of making sure they and you do not enter or infringe a runway without clearance.
The take-off/landing clearances take into account other conflicting runways are clear of traffic.
It's ATC's way of making sure they and you do not enter or infringe a runway without clearance.
The take-off/landing clearances take into account other conflicting runways are clear of traffic.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer, cos if the ATCO didnt say it and get a readback then they would get their a
ses kicked by their Local Competency Examiner.
Most ATCO's would agree with you that it is unecessarily verbose and time consuming but the rules are quite clear. Where "Runway Ahead" markings exist on the taxiway then a specific clearance must be given and read back for that portion of the taxi. The reason the "Runway Ahead" markings exist is part of an initiative to help reduce the number of runway incursions which was showing a marked increase before the initiative was introduced.
Incidentally runway 30 at EDI is used on average for about 10% of landings ( thats not including the increased usage when 06/24 is shut) and that is likely to increase . Also, ironically, given your comments on Schipol clearances, which I know to be true, you can be sure that any KLM crew not given such a clearance will immediatley come back and say " Are we clear to cross the undershoot"
ses kicked by their Local Competency Examiner.Most ATCO's would agree with you that it is unecessarily verbose and time consuming but the rules are quite clear. Where "Runway Ahead" markings exist on the taxiway then a specific clearance must be given and read back for that portion of the taxi. The reason the "Runway Ahead" markings exist is part of an initiative to help reduce the number of runway incursions which was showing a marked increase before the initiative was introduced.
Incidentally runway 30 at EDI is used on average for about 10% of landings ( thats not including the increased usage when 06/24 is shut) and that is likely to increase . Also, ironically, given your comments on Schipol clearances, which I know to be true, you can be sure that any KLM crew not given such a clearance will immediatley come back and say " Are we clear to cross the undershoot"
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why oh why, when at EDI and at GLA do we have to read back this most unnecessary, annoying clearance before taxying:"
Because I have been instructed that I MUST issue this clearance which I find unnecessary and annoying but it needs a readback.
"Lets face it, the runway that the undershoot belongs to, is closed 99% of the time. "
Just because you don't request to depart/land on it does not mean that it is not available. Speak to a Flybe Captain.
"Also, think about it, when landing or taking off we also cross the same airspace as the undershoot, just a few meters further, but we don't get clearances like "Clear take off/to land AND clear to cross the damn undershoot!"
No s**t. Try telling that to SRG and the BAA who told us we had to do it.
We don't like it and complained bitterly about it but do not have a choice and it is a pain in the arse. It's also inconsistent as not all the runway entrances have the markings but it is here to stay.
Because I have been instructed that I MUST issue this clearance which I find unnecessary and annoying but it needs a readback.
"Lets face it, the runway that the undershoot belongs to, is closed 99% of the time. "
Just because you don't request to depart/land on it does not mean that it is not available. Speak to a Flybe Captain.
"Also, think about it, when landing or taking off we also cross the same airspace as the undershoot, just a few meters further, but we don't get clearances like "Clear take off/to land AND clear to cross the damn undershoot!"
No s**t. Try telling that to SRG and the BAA who told us we had to do it.
We don't like it and complained bitterly about it but do not have a choice and it is a pain in the arse. It's also inconsistent as not all the runway entrances have the markings but it is here to stay.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident Prawn, why not address your concerns to the following:-
Regional Manager ATS Safety Regulation (Northern Region)
Air Traffic Standards Division
Safety Regulation Group
Civil Aviation Authority
7 Melville Terrace
Stirling
Scotland
FK8 2ND
Tel: (+44) (0) 1786 431400
Fax: (+44) (0) 1786 448030
By e-mail: [email protected]
Regional Manager ATS Safety Regulation (Northern Region)
Air Traffic Standards Division
Safety Regulation Group
Civil Aviation Authority
7 Melville Terrace
Stirling
Scotland
FK8 2ND
Tel: (+44) (0) 1786 431400
Fax: (+44) (0) 1786 448030
By e-mail: [email protected]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
runway 30 at EDI is used on average for about 10% of landings
NS
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP, clearly you are a regular user of the airport and seem fully conversant with the procedures there.
Just imagine that you are not, you are a european or non european pliot whose first language is not English, you are cleared to holding point "x" when suddenly you see "runway ahead", signs then a Cat 1/2 or 3 holding point, of course you've read the notams and noticed that 30 is closed today but that was an hour or so ago, its busy on the flight deck cos you're preparing for departure and your colleague can't remember either, what would you do?
Sail blithely across the runway or stop until the clearance is crystal clear? I would hope that its the latter.
I can understand your frustration and that of the ATCOs who have to implement the procedure, but any runway crossing requires a positive clearance for the reasons already given and the above.
Just imagine that you are not, you are a european or non european pliot whose first language is not English, you are cleared to holding point "x" when suddenly you see "runway ahead", signs then a Cat 1/2 or 3 holding point, of course you've read the notams and noticed that 30 is closed today but that was an hour or so ago, its busy on the flight deck cos you're preparing for departure and your colleague can't remember either, what would you do?
Sail blithely across the runway or stop until the clearance is crystal clear? I would hope that its the latter.
I can understand your frustration and that of the ATCOs who have to implement the procedure, but any runway crossing requires a positive clearance for the reasons already given and the above.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: EGPH
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, think about it, when landing or taking off we also cross the same airspace as the undershoot, just a few meters further, but we don't get clearances like "Clear take off/to land AND clear to cross the damn undershoot!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: roundabout Milton Keynes
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATS 1 Section 2 Ch1 page 8 para 9.4.2 refers to why a controller has to pass such a clearance and, as it is a clearance, it has to be read back.
Speaking as the person who "invented" runway incursions in the UK, I can say that there was no evidence that the old style of clearance to a holding point, which included an implied clearance to cross any runway in the way, ever caused a problem which resulted in a runway incursion. Some ATCO out there (not SRG) thought it might and raised the issue.
When you look at it from a risk assessment point of view then it is clear that there is a risk, so SRG accepted the point and altered the basic procedure.
Now, of course, there is a danger that it is done (and read back) by rote especially when it refers to little used runways and the RI danger is back to where it was before!
Speaking as the person who "invented" runway incursions in the UK, I can say that there was no evidence that the old style of clearance to a holding point, which included an implied clearance to cross any runway in the way, ever caused a problem which resulted in a runway incursion. Some ATCO out there (not SRG) thought it might and raised the issue.
When you look at it from a risk assessment point of view then it is clear that there is a risk, so SRG accepted the point and altered the basic procedure.
Now, of course, there is a danger that it is done (and read back) by rote especially when it refers to little used runways and the RI danger is back to where it was before!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it's verbose. So what?
As a pilot and an ATCO, I would expect that no-one proceed beyond a runway holding point (whether or not that runway is active) without a specific clearance to do so (at airfields where ATC is used). Who are you to decide whether or not it's safe to cross a runway which you 'know' is not in use? If you 'know' it's not in use and it's an unnecessary check, why is it SOP for most crews to select wing strobes on whenever on or crossing ANY runway? The fail-safe position is as it is now.
Whay not clear taxying aircraft to the intermediate holding point and then give further clearance to cross as they approach? For crews who are unfamiliar with the airfield (such as me..) it would reduce the cockpit workload and reduce the possibility of confusion. In terms of R/T loading, two short transmissions are not that much worse than one long one which might require clarification.
As a pilot and an ATCO, I would expect that no-one proceed beyond a runway holding point (whether or not that runway is active) without a specific clearance to do so (at airfields where ATC is used). Who are you to decide whether or not it's safe to cross a runway which you 'know' is not in use? If you 'know' it's not in use and it's an unnecessary check, why is it SOP for most crews to select wing strobes on whenever on or crossing ANY runway? The fail-safe position is as it is now.
Whay not clear taxying aircraft to the intermediate holding point and then give further clearance to cross as they approach? For crews who are unfamiliar with the airfield (such as me..) it would reduce the cockpit workload and reduce the possibility of confusion. In terms of R/T loading, two short transmissions are not that much worse than one long one which might require clarification.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared to some of the things that certain NATS units train their guys/girls to say, this is a minor inconvenience! After all, when dealing with foreign crews this increases awareness that they are crossing close to a runway which can be no bad thing. Especially when you do hear of some of the eye watering stories that do crop up from time to time.
