Runway Vacated Report
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be an awful lot of fluffing around the issue here. The airside driver must have an airside driving permit and vehicle RT certificate.
If he has crossed a holding point (his training would have taught him what this is) then he MUST NOT re-enter the runway without clearance.
It is of no relevance that the tower controller should have foreseen a potential problem (there is no requirement to) and there is also no requirement to report vacated. Having said that if a vehicle is cleared to operate on the runway it is good practice to report vacated but the fact that the tower controller saw him cross the holding point makes it perfectly acceptable to clear an aircraft to takeoff/land.
Grass roots fact is that the driver is at fault (it's a runway incursion). MOR it, accept it and learn from it.
If he has crossed a holding point (his training would have taught him what this is) then he MUST NOT re-enter the runway without clearance.
It is of no relevance that the tower controller should have foreseen a potential problem (there is no requirement to) and there is also no requirement to report vacated. Having said that if a vehicle is cleared to operate on the runway it is good practice to report vacated but the fact that the tower controller saw him cross the holding point makes it perfectly acceptable to clear an aircraft to takeoff/land.
Grass roots fact is that the driver is at fault (it's a runway incursion). MOR it, accept it and learn from it.
So, it's fine for the controller not to foresee the potential problem because they weren't required to...but not fine for the driver to re-enter the runway having not called vacated when we've established there's no requirement for that either?
It's only a runway incursion if he enters the runway without permission...but they HAD permission, and in their eyes they hadn't reported vacated, hadn't given the runway back and so had never left the runway. It's not cut and dry and simple. It's a case of two people getting their wires crossed - the controller, for thinking the vehicle had vacated when the vehicle hadn't said so and obviously didn't think they'd vacated. And the vehicle's for crossing the holding point and doing the 180 without keeping ATC informed.
Last edited by Kimmikins; 22nd Jan 2014 at 16:00. Reason: Cross posted
I cross posted, and you said what I thought...only more eloquent!
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what you are saying is that...
A Vehicle chasing a Bird or Fox or Moose around the airport has to ask for clearance every time he crosses a Holding Point Yellow Line... ?
A Vehicle chasing a Bird or Fox or Moose around the airport has to ask for clearance every time he crosses a Holding Point Yellow Line... ?
A Vehicle chasing a Bird or Fox or Moose around the airport has to ask for clearance every time he crosses a Holding Point Yellow Line.
The Eurocontrol training zone has a bit on runway incursions and holding lines.
Suppose I give a vehicle an instruction
"...... procreed on RWY XX/XX and listen out" instead of "...... procreed on RWY XX/XX and listen out next report RWY vacated on TXY ...".
I observe the patrol to its conclusion where the driver leaves the vehicle and enters the fire station.
There has been no further communication between me and the vehicle.
Now is the RWY clear?
Runway-holding position. A designated position intended to protect a runway, an obstacle limitation surface, or an ILS/MLS critical/sensitive area at which taxiing aircraft and vehicles shall stop and hold, unless otherwise authorized by the aerodrome control tower.
Note.— In radiotelephony phraseologies, the expression “holding point” is used to designate the runway-holding
position.
Note.— In radiotelephony phraseologies, the expression “holding point” is used to designate the runway-holding
position.
So when you leave the RWY you do not reenter without permission once more.
That been said I would not like to have to defend this argument in the current climate .
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phiggsbroadband,
Thats where the Wildlife Controllers proffessionalism should come into it. A good WCO will know where the wildlife is likely to go based on previous observations. For example I know where our 2 onsite Fox dens are and where the Rabbit Warren entrances are so I know where the foxes are going to and from.
This allows me to pre-empt what clearance I am likely to require and get the request in early as to where I need clearance to operate.
Thats where the Wildlife Controllers proffessionalism should come into it. A good WCO will know where the wildlife is likely to go based on previous observations. For example I know where our 2 onsite Fox dens are and where the Rabbit Warren entrances are so I know where the foxes are going to and from.
This allows me to pre-empt what clearance I am likely to require and get the request in early as to where I need clearance to operate.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thoughts. Would like to chuck another scenario into the mix.
Vehicle crossing . he doesn't have to call vacated as there is no requirement to ( which I completely disagree with but hey perhaps being at Heathrow for 24 years has made have these thoughts)
So vehicle is crossing. ATC controller distracted. When he turns round he sees no vehicle. he has an aircraft on approach. He tries to call the vehicle but by then he is parked up radio off having a brew.
would you as the controller give that aircraft clearance to land ??
If so why when you cannot confirm where that vehicle is and you have had no positive call back from the vehicle saying he/she has vacated.
If you did give it clearance and there was an incident what would you say ?
" I didn't see it guv" and take Arsen wengers normal stance on things?
I don't think that would wash when up before the beak !!!
An RT message is after all recorded and does not have any ambiguity
Vehicle crossing . he doesn't have to call vacated as there is no requirement to ( which I completely disagree with but hey perhaps being at Heathrow for 24 years has made have these thoughts)
So vehicle is crossing. ATC controller distracted. When he turns round he sees no vehicle. he has an aircraft on approach. He tries to call the vehicle but by then he is parked up radio off having a brew.
would you as the controller give that aircraft clearance to land ??
If so why when you cannot confirm where that vehicle is and you have had no positive call back from the vehicle saying he/she has vacated.
If you did give it clearance and there was an incident what would you say ?
" I didn't see it guv" and take Arsen wengers normal stance on things?
I don't think that would wash when up before the beak !!!
An RT message is after all recorded and does not have any ambiguity
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle crossing . he doesn't have to call vacated as there is no requirement to ( which I completely disagree with but hey perhaps being at Heathrow for 24 years has made have these thoughts)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a bit of a stretch to imagine the scenario where the Controller is distracted long enough for a vehicle to cross a runway, clear the taxiways, park up and switch off his radios.
And we've established he's parked up having a brew so clearly the incident wont be involving the vehicle, so why is anyone up before the beak?
In all seriousness, What kind of distraction is going to happen that will prevent the controller keeping an eye on the vehicle for the twenty-thirty seconds it will take to cross the runway
If the ADI controller can't keep at least half an eye on the thing that is Blocking his runway without completely losing track of it on the airfield, then by all means make a runway vacated report part of the crossing clearance.
However I would worry about either the ADI controller who could become distracted to that extent or the working environment that could present that level of distraction.
For the avoidance of doubt, if a vehicle is carrying out an inspection of the runway, then I will require a vacated call as part of the clearance, but I have always worked at units that mean a portion of the runway is obscured from the VCR.
If I am clearing a vehicle to cross my active runway, within sight of the VCR then I do not require a vacated call.
At units with Tower, ground and vehicle UHF all being handled by a single controller there is enough RT to deal with without adding unnecessary calls.
Edit
An RT message is by no means definitive, how often have we seen both Vehicles and aircraft call vacated, when they are barely off the runway centreline?
And we've established he's parked up having a brew so clearly the incident wont be involving the vehicle, so why is anyone up before the beak?
In all seriousness, What kind of distraction is going to happen that will prevent the controller keeping an eye on the vehicle for the twenty-thirty seconds it will take to cross the runway
If the ADI controller can't keep at least half an eye on the thing that is Blocking his runway without completely losing track of it on the airfield, then by all means make a runway vacated report part of the crossing clearance.
However I would worry about either the ADI controller who could become distracted to that extent or the working environment that could present that level of distraction.
For the avoidance of doubt, if a vehicle is carrying out an inspection of the runway, then I will require a vacated call as part of the clearance, but I have always worked at units that mean a portion of the runway is obscured from the VCR.
If I am clearing a vehicle to cross my active runway, within sight of the VCR then I do not require a vacated call.
At units with Tower, ground and vehicle UHF all being handled by a single controller there is enough RT to deal with without adding unnecessary calls.
Edit
An RT message is by no means definitive, how often have we seen both Vehicles and aircraft call vacated, when they are barely off the runway centreline?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one question, relating to VHF/UHF.
from the last post..
'At units with Tower, ground and vehicle UHF all being handled by a single controller there is enough RT to deal with without adding unnecessary calls.'
Do the UHF channels get 'bandboxed' with the VHF channels, so that all aircraft can hear the UHF transmissions.?
from the last post..
'At units with Tower, ground and vehicle UHF all being handled by a single controller there is enough RT to deal with without adding unnecessary calls.'
Do the UHF channels get 'bandboxed' with the VHF channels, so that all aircraft can hear the UHF transmissions.?
And we've established he's parked up having a brew so clearly the incident wont be involving the vehicle
However if a vehicle has been given a blanket clearance or a loose one then you must be cautious of the fact that they may reenter the RWY.
, how often have we seen both Vehicles and aircraft call vacated
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scenario you've just described was normally when I'd get told my ATC that they'd seen me vacate, or when they'd ask me to confirm vacated I agree with the need for situational awareness, it's why I'd always report vacated whether asked to or not. Yes, it may take up a teeny amount of RT time, but at least my conscience is clear knowing that tower had a clear-cut answer as to my intentions. I never had anyone in the tower raise concern about my practice.
I agree with the need for situational awareness, it's why I'd always report vacated whether asked to or not. Yes, it may take up a teeny amount of RT time, but at least my conscience is clear knowing that tower had a clear-cut answer as to my intentions. I never had anyone in the tower raise concern about my practice.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummmm, H24 stopbars have been around for a while now...
(I know there are some vehicle only entry/exit points at various airports which only have runway guard lights, “wig-wags”)
I’d be surprised, certainly in UK, if many/any airports have a procedure which states you can cross an illuminated stopbar without the express permission of ATC? If so I’d suggest that is, at the very least, a “latent risk”.
As for vehicle entry/exit points only protected by a wig-wag and a painted line...I guess it depends on local rules...but surely the only sensible one is “Don’t £€@&;^¥ enter, unless explicitly cleared”?
(I know there are some vehicle only entry/exit points at various airports which only have runway guard lights, “wig-wags”)
I’d be surprised, certainly in UK, if many/any airports have a procedure which states you can cross an illuminated stopbar without the express permission of ATC? If so I’d suggest that is, at the very least, a “latent risk”.
As for vehicle entry/exit points only protected by a wig-wag and a painted line...I guess it depends on local rules...but surely the only sensible one is “Don’t £€@&;^¥ enter, unless explicitly cleared”?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a similar runway incursion a while back with a vehicle that had been given clearance to operate 'all areas' to carry out a lighting inspection. The procedure for the inspection is to check all the runway lighting, including lead on/offs followed by taxiways North then South. The driver checked the runway lighting and vacated north side, 10 minutes later crossed a runway holding point to continue south side. The ATCO had removed the blocker strip from the runway bay and on seeing the vehicle cross at the stop end filed a runway incursion (no aircraft involved luckily).
Personally, if I have given a clearance for a vehicle to operate on a runway or 'all areas' I would want either a runway vacated call or an acknowledgement of an instruction to remain north/south/east/west of the runway before issuing any take off/landing clearances. Where I work it's common for a vehicle engaged in wildlife scaring to drive towards/over holding points to encourage the wildlife to leave the runway area before turning back onto the runway to continue the inspection/wildlife removal operations.
For aircraft/vehicles crossing, providing that they are in sight of the ATCO and workload is such that attention is not likely to be diverted elsewhere, I don't see why a vacated call is going to make operations any safer and is just unnecessary RT imo.
Personally, if I have given a clearance for a vehicle to operate on a runway or 'all areas' I would want either a runway vacated call or an acknowledgement of an instruction to remain north/south/east/west of the runway before issuing any take off/landing clearances. Where I work it's common for a vehicle engaged in wildlife scaring to drive towards/over holding points to encourage the wildlife to leave the runway area before turning back onto the runway to continue the inspection/wildlife removal operations.
For aircraft/vehicles crossing, providing that they are in sight of the ATCO and workload is such that attention is not likely to be diverted elsewhere, I don't see why a vacated call is going to make operations any safer and is just unnecessary RT imo.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assumption.
How does the vehicle driver know that the vehicle is in sight of the ATCO?
Strips are procedural, actioned by R/T procedures.
Visual surveillance still requires R/T confirmation, as your 'free ranging' example demonstrates.
Consider low vis when visual confirmation not available. R/T will be needed then.
For aircraft/vehicles crossing, providing that they are in sight of the ATCO and workload is such that attention is not likely to be diverted elsewhere, I don't see why a vacated call is going to make operations any safer and is just unnecessary RT imo
Strips are procedural, actioned by R/T procedures.
Visual surveillance still requires R/T confirmation, as your 'free ranging' example demonstrates.
Consider low vis when visual confirmation not available. R/T will be needed then.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
If it's obvious to me that a second aircraft has been given a "Continue" pending landing clearance behind me, I'll call "runway vacated" on doing so, to avoid a further delay.
Look, if ATC had cleared the vehicle to enter the runway/flight strip to conduct birdscare operations, it is incumbent on ATC to ensure that the area is clear before permitting aircraft movements. Duty of care means that it is not good enough to observe the vehicle crossing the HP moving away from the runway - the driver could have been simply doing a u-turn or something and can reasonably assume that they still have a clearance to operate on the runway.
Look, if ATC had cleared the vehicle to enter the runway/flight strip to conduct birdscare operations, it is incumbent on ATC to ensure that the area is clear before permitting aircraft movements. Duty of care means that it is not good enough to observe the vehicle crossing the HP moving away from the runway - the driver could have been simply doing a u-turn or something and can reasonably assume that they still have a clearance to operate on the runway.
If the driver re-enters the runway without either a blanket clearance to do as they wish or explicit re-entry clearance then they are committing a runway incursion.
An ATCO will either give a blanket clearance to proceed with the patrol and report back on the ramp or proceed onto runway XX and vacate at .....
Yes the ATCO should scan the runway before giving a landing clearance.
Once they have performed the scan and assured themselves that the runway is clear (vehicle is observed vacated at .....) then they have satisfied their requirements under a duty of care scenario.
The driver of the vehicle is also under a duty of care not to enter the runway without explicit permission. So once they vacate at .... they are NOT to re-enter the runway without getting a new clearance to do so.