HOLDING POSITIONS
 

Why are we now being given taxi clearnces to "holding positions" rather than "holding points"? It's a bit of a mouthful first thing in the morning.

I believe it is a change to bring us in line with ICAO phraseology, but I sympathise with your comment. Someone has already pointed out on another thread that 'holding position' could easily be confused with 'hold position'. That's progress for you! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

I also believe that in the USA, the phrase 'taxi into position' equates to 'line up R/W...', so could this recent change lead to potential confusion regarding runway occupancy?

[ 08 February 2002: Message edited by: spekesoftly ]</p>

Our phraseology is "Taxi into position and hold." There are those who are looking at the line up and wait phrase that y'all use... Lots of folks here don't want to change though.

regards

Its a load of complete B*llo**s, and is opposed not only by atcos on the coal face but the majority of our own atc srg inspectors.. .Both I and several of my colleagues have been asked when using the "taxi to holding position...", "well - do you want me to hold position or taxi?".. .Fortunately you can still use the phraseology "taxi to (loctaion)", and I and many of my colleagues will use this, refusing to use the new phraseology above.. . <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> Too many new procedures are bought in by dinasours who have been away from operational positions for too long, without consulting the pilots and atcos who have to contend with this rubbish. <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> . .So there <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Here's an interesting point.

Whilst we are now supposed to give "taxi to holding position (designation) runway (designation) via (route)" there is no definition of what a holding position is in the MATS 1 glossary.

There is however a definition for a holding POINT <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Well done CAA, top marks again <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Agreed,it's a complete shambles. Even if ICAO produces such a load of b*ll*cks, why cannot our own SRG nip it in the bud by refusing to implement it in the UK and then arguing the point with ICAO?. .In the new version of Doc 4444, there is now a requirement to specify runway crossing if implied in a taxi route - why has this not yet been included in the UK MATS Part 1? Mind you, some of the associated ICAO RTF phraseology is complete nonsense.. .Apparently, SRG have had a bit of flack, so watch this space.

Just who is responsible for this monstrous nonsense?

Any one seen the tosh about clear and cleared as far as take offs are concerned? I despair!

If you believe this crap phraseology is dangerous and refuse, like my entire unit, to even consider using it - then do as we have and 1261 it, they might get the message if enough of us do. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

2 sheds. .Donkeys ago, I "tried" to impliment[?] ICAO doc 4444 to the French route planners.... <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> . .It was [of course] ignored <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> . .we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

If possible, could we have a few facts about what the reaction has been at specific UK units, and which ones are refusing to implement it. Also, is such refusal blessed by unit management to any degree or are the troops just revolting.. .Good reason for asking - ammunition needed.

As I said on the other thread (Hands up who likes the new avoiding action phraseology) at my unit we side step the Holding Positions bit by using the "Taxy to....(location)"

As far as I am aware none of my colleagues thinks the phraseology changes are positive. It does however raise an interesting point which has been causing some discussion in the tower.... WE as ATCO's are constantly bombarded with these phraseology changes which result in convoluted and often tortuous RT in an effort to prevent pilots doing something stupid - like taking off without an actual take-off clearance being issued. What or how are pilots kept up to speed on these changes???

It's painfully obvious from many threads on this forum and through what I hear day in day out on the RT that many pilots are not kept up to date on RT phraseology, what needs to be read back etc.

We have our LCE's to monitor our RT and pick US up if it's not "standard" - how are pilots checked for RT proficiency?

And whilst I am in long-winded mode :) Surely in this day and age of electronic flight decks, it's not beyond the wit of Messrs Airbus and Boeing to put a simple little slide bar thing in the cockpit which the pilot moves to indicate that he has received a landing or take-off clearance? Would save an awful lot of repeated landing clearances, grief and form filling :)

DD

Yet again, the UK stated aim of becoming more 'standard europe' has a safety implication - and not a positive one.

All above comments are relevant, especially those relating to US phraseology.

I thought we knew that runway incursions were a significant hazard.....

SRG should exercise their (limited) muscle to point out that it's no good standardising with standard procedures which aren't safe. This is one such. The SRG top brass could even offer to resign en-masse if they felt strongly about this one..... But we know that 'no accidents (yet) is safety', err, sorry, 'safety is an accident', errr, whatever.....

There is no real RT standardisation training for pilots. Apart from doing our own individual research, we are entirely dependant on input from training pilots. Said individuals will not always know the correct RT anyway (I have been bollocked before for using the 'wrong' RT, even when I know the other guy is using phraseology that is years (or even decades!) out of date).

Even if they do know the correct pilots RT, they are (normally self admittedly) unlikely to know the correct ATC RT. So when emergencies are being practiced, ATC is likely to be unrealistic.

Basically, IMHO, RT is not treated as a priority. There are too many other boxes that need ticking.

Hope that is not too depressing.

CPB

Doesn't "taxi holding position C1 RW 24" sound suspiciously like "taxi into position and hold at C1 RW24"?

I'm not fully confident that some of our US crews on 3am mail/cargo flights will spot the difference (and that's not a slur on US crews - it just sounds too similar)!

2 Sheds: at PH almost nobody is using it....

Capt Pit Bull. Are they not properly tested a la the "old days"? I did my Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence exam before I was an ATCO or pilot back in the very early '60s. It involved a lot of reading of a certain CAP and then a session with a terrifying but ultra-fair examiner at Min of Av HQ. I sat in a box with a headset on and had to followed certain scripted procedures - Request taxy clearance; you're on airways, transmit a proper position report; contact XXX for a QDM; you're on fire - issue the approprite calls, etc, etc. After the session, which I ended sweating profusely, the examiner went through it word by word and picked out every error. I got my ticket though. I never ever used that licence in a flying capacity but the experience stuck with me and it convinced me of the need for good R/T for ever.

HD,. .Indeed during initial qualification you go through the motions as described in your post.. .Thereafter there is no recurrent training on RT alone, not even a publication stating any alterations in procedures. However on every simride or linecheck you will get remarks about the RT from your examiner. But he may be using old style RT too, as there is no recurrent training.. .As someone posted earlier, at our profchecks, RT is simply not high up on the priority list.

You can send your rusty pilots to me &lt;G&gt;... I teach a class on phraseology and other such things for sim instructors...

regards

2 sheds - I've heard on the grapevine that SS are not using the phraseology, some muppet managed to think it meant line up, and read back as such. 1261 methinks in the pipeline?

Static. OK. We too have periodic R/T checks. Our local examiners pull tapes at random and check us out - and will pull us up if things aren't right. However, they can't be listening all the time...