Line up and Wait
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston, MA USA
Age: 68
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Line up and Wait
Several months ago, I got a nice e-mail from the FAA explaining that to better match ICAO standards, the phrase "Taxi into position and hold" (also known as TPH) was going to be replaced by "Line up and wait". Of course this is at a time when this clearence is being used somewhat less frequently. When I get this clearence, I still always hear "Taxi into position and hold (along with the requisite report on inbound or pattern traffic)".
Is anyone hearing the new (to us) phrase in the US? I'm wondering when they are really going to change.
Is anyone hearing the new (to us) phrase in the US? I'm wondering when they are really going to change.
We can play with these forever ............
At one time it was "line up and hold", but could be misheard as "line up and roll".
Not so long ago we briefly changed to "taxy to holding position A1", but quickly changed back to "holding point" as the fomer might be misconstrued as a US style line up clearance.
At one time it was "line up and hold", but could be misheard as "line up and roll".
Not so long ago we briefly changed to "taxy to holding position A1", but quickly changed back to "holding point" as the fomer might be misconstrued as a US style line up clearance.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't RT supposed to be clear, concise and unambiguous? I have always found (RAF standard) "C/S - line up" to be sufficient, perhaps with the addition of the runway designator if there is any chance of confusion ie the ac is departing from an intermediate position.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: LHR/Surrey
Age: 39
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "and wait" is optional in the UK and is, I guess, ideally to be used for emphasis when there is more than the usual reason compelling them not to accidentally take off.
I try to only add it on when there is an intersection departure, crossing traffic or a vortex reason for them not to take off so as to keep the RT cleaner and also by not using it in every transmission it does not dilute the meaning of the word "wait".
I try to only add it on when there is an intersection departure, crossing traffic or a vortex reason for them not to take off so as to keep the RT cleaner and also by not using it in every transmission it does not dilute the meaning of the word "wait".
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Near London, alledgedly..
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelapse
I try to only add it on when there is an intersection departure, crossing traffic or a vortex reason for them not to take off so as to keep the RT cleaner and also by not using it in every transmission it does not dilute the meaning of the word "wait".
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The adding of "...and wait" on the end is to be used when a reason is given by ATC to why you're being told to line up and not take off. So when its obvious why you can't yet take off just "line up" will apparently suffice.
Atleast thats what I think it says in MATS pt1
Atleast thats what I think it says in MATS pt1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Line op and wait' appeared in the mid-1980s, (if I remember correctly), due to continuing fallout from the accident at GCXO.
The thinking was that: -
'Line up and hold', which was, (I believe), the standard phraseology of the time, could be misheard as 'line up and roll'.
The thinking was that: -
'Line up and hold', which was, (I believe), the standard phraseology of the time, could be misheard as 'line up and roll'.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I don't know
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changed Several Times
ICAO has changed several times.
Until middle/late 90's was "into position and hold" I think was not directly related with Canary Is. accident but changed for some other incident at that time.
Changed to "line up and wait" with "and wait" optional.
it seems to me that every accident/incident that someone find that R/T could have been something to do then R/T must be changed, modified.
Instead of keep it simple, clear and concise is turning to a more build up/just in case/etc etc phraseology.
It will eventually become a plain language R/T asking the pilot "please, describe the clearance once again..."
Worlwide standarization should be THE topic in R/T!
Until middle/late 90's was "into position and hold" I think was not directly related with Canary Is. accident but changed for some other incident at that time.
Changed to "line up and wait" with "and wait" optional.
it seems to me that every accident/incident that someone find that R/T could have been something to do then R/T must be changed, modified.
Instead of keep it simple, clear and concise is turning to a more build up/just in case/etc etc phraseology.
It will eventually become a plain language R/T asking the pilot "please, describe the clearance once again..."
Worlwide standarization should be THE topic in R/T!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Someone else posted on here about 'wasted words' ie wasted airtime.
Good point.
So why is it, when I'm sitting at hold 'Delta', does the ATC er say, 'line up 27 via delta'
Do I have a fuggin choice? I'm already at Delta (and cleared to there and only there). Could I line up from Charlie? Nope.
There is b/s in ATC too.
(I speak as an ex Army VHF/ UHF/ HF class one Sig)
Good point.
So why is it, when I'm sitting at hold 'Delta', does the ATC er say, 'line up 27 via delta'
Do I have a fuggin choice? I'm already at Delta (and cleared to there and only there). Could I line up from Charlie? Nope.
There is b/s in ATC too.
(I speak as an ex Army VHF/ UHF/ HF class one Sig)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBF - there could be two reasons I can see for the 'line up 27 via delta'. The first may be a situational awareness call for other traffic. The other reason may be if there are multiple aircraft at different holding points, then if one misheard the callsign, the holding point would be a giveaway that the line-up was not for the guy at echo or bravo or wherever.
Other than those reasons, wasted airtime I think.
Cheers,
NFR.
Other than those reasons, wasted airtime I think.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBF,
The reason that 'via delta line up RW27' is used, is purely for safety reasons. There have been several incidents where ATC thought that they were lining up an aircraft at a particular point on the RW but the aircraft was actually holding at a point further down the RW and started to line up in front of the previous landing aircraft - scary stuff! Also it helps prevent other aircraft from taking your line up call by mistake. Finally it is good for the situational awareness of all crews on the airfield. In my view it is certainly not wasted airtime. Hope this helps!
Regards, ADIS
The reason that 'via delta line up RW27' is used, is purely for safety reasons. There have been several incidents where ATC thought that they were lining up an aircraft at a particular point on the RW but the aircraft was actually holding at a point further down the RW and started to line up in front of the previous landing aircraft - scary stuff! Also it helps prevent other aircraft from taking your line up call by mistake. Finally it is good for the situational awareness of all crews on the airfield. In my view it is certainly not wasted airtime. Hope this helps!
Regards, ADIS
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Do I have a fuggin choice? I'm already at Delta (and cleared to there and only there). Could I line up from Charlie? Nope.>>
God Bless mummy and daddy... and don't ever let me ever fly with this person.
I started in Heathrow Tower in 1972 and was trained to specify the holding point when giving line up clearance (for the very good reasons already mentioned). It's called "S-A-F-E-T-Y" and despite the bleating of very few pilots, I never ever recall "R/T time" having a significant effect on movements.
God Bless mummy and daddy... and don't ever let me ever fly with this person.
I started in Heathrow Tower in 1972 and was trained to specify the holding point when giving line up clearance (for the very good reasons already mentioned). It's called "S-A-F-E-T-Y" and despite the bleating of very few pilots, I never ever recall "R/T time" having a significant effect on movements.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: LHR/Surrey
Age: 39
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's more about what might be interpreted rather than what was said.. in the same way that you would never be instructed to "go ahead" but the UK phraseology changed to "pass your message" to avoid the wrong idea being implanted, and I think that's the point.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTO,
sadly, events at GCXO proved that is not always the case.
Historically, some crews did acknowledge a T/O clearance with the phrase....(c/s)...rolling.
Here's a silly story from an ATCO who speaks at our local aviation group.
Many years ago, a Tels engineer telephoned the tower to ask if the ILS could be taken out of service.
The call was answered by the ATC assistant.
As the assistant wasn't qualified to answer the question, he, quite correctly, said "you will need to speak to the tower supervisor" and promptly passed the telephone handset to the duty Tower Supervisor, informing him "tels would like to speak to you".
The duty supervisor put the handset to his mouth and said "supervisor, go-ahead"
The reply from Tels was: - "Thank-you", - followed by click....whirrr.... and the 'phone went dead. Unfortunately so did the ILS, much to the surprise of both the approach controller, and the two 'fully-established' inbounds!
As (I believe), Stanley Stewart says in 'Flying The Big Jets', "Murphy always wins in the end"
As someone said recently, "every incident is a free lesson".
sadly, events at GCXO proved that is not always the case.
Historically, some crews did acknowledge a T/O clearance with the phrase....(c/s)...rolling.
Here's a silly story from an ATCO who speaks at our local aviation group.
Many years ago, a Tels engineer telephoned the tower to ask if the ILS could be taken out of service.
The call was answered by the ATC assistant.
As the assistant wasn't qualified to answer the question, he, quite correctly, said "you will need to speak to the tower supervisor" and promptly passed the telephone handset to the duty Tower Supervisor, informing him "tels would like to speak to you".
The duty supervisor put the handset to his mouth and said "supervisor, go-ahead"
The reply from Tels was: - "Thank-you", - followed by click....whirrr.... and the 'phone went dead. Unfortunately so did the ILS, much to the surprise of both the approach controller, and the two 'fully-established' inbounds!
As (I believe), Stanley Stewart says in 'Flying The Big Jets', "Murphy always wins in the end"
As someone said recently, "every incident is a free lesson".
Last edited by ZOOKER; 14th Dec 2009 at 20:28.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My god ZOOKER what's going on? Thats a sensible, reasoned and valid contribution to the thread! Are you feeling ok?
Seriously, good post... never thought I'd ever be saying that!
Regards, ADIS
Seriously, good post... never thought I'd ever be saying that!
Regards, ADIS
